USA Network Pictures captured the true story of Vlad the Impaler. This movie was as suggested by my summary a Haunting Tale of Justice and Love.

The story of Dracul, was masterfully brought to life, with Rudolf Martin bringing just the right edge to the Vlad (Dracula). Jane March was radiant and haunting as Lidia (Vlad's wife).

The cinematography was stunning, the battle scenes short and frenzied. Seeing the way in which this film was done, it is no wonder that the Dark Prince is still a national hero in Romania, whose return is anxiously awaited.

I can only hope that USA Pictures has the common sense to release this film to Video and DvD as no Dracula collection can be complete without it.


*May contain spoilers in reference to thematically important quotes*

What first caught my eye about this movie was the title: Dark Prince: The "True" Story of Dracula. After watching the film, and doing research on my own, I have found that this was not the historically accurate movie I was anticipating. However, in the respect of creating a movie based on some historical events and linking them to present day folklore about the literary figure, well done. I will admit that if the movie was made to be totally accurate, I probably would not have liked it as much as I did.

To comment on the plot line, by making this movie action packed, romantic, and dramatic in illustrating the possible goodness within a man who has been known for terrible deeds, this satisfied many of the characteristics that I like to see in a movie.

The casting was also excellent, especially for Vlad, the attractive Rudolf Martin whose looks scream Dracula in this movie as they did in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"; and Lidia, the petite Jane March whose voice and looks expertly display the quiet yet strong religious character. The personalities of Vlad and Lidia perfectly compliment one another to create the drama the two share and show the power of love between them. *I loved the constant reference of walking with each other in the providing a good romantic connection as well.

Another merit for the movie was the soundtrack: a well selected arrangement of background music that seemed to fit perfectly whenever it was played.

Whether it is the acting, the plot line, or just the general topic of Dracula, I always come back to this movie as being one of my favorites. I would have loved to see it go on for more than 90 minutes, but at face value, a definite must see film for entertainment purposes, which is why it receives a 9 from me. However, do not let the "true" story fool you, for being a biography, this would get a 4 or 5.


The true story of Vlad Dracula (The Impaler) is often confused by the propaganda that was circulated at the time by the Turks, and borrowed by his enemies on the Christian side of the frontier. Although this film portrays Vlad as more loved than feared by his people, which history disputes, the basic structure is very accurate. The acting, the sets, the scenes are all excellent; if all films made on this sort of budget were as good, Hollywood could close tomorrow. Even if the history doesn't interest you at all then watch it just for the quality of production. Please note that this is not a horror film - just a realistic representation of the Balkans in medieval times.


When Bram Stoker decided to name his famous vampire after a legendary Romanian prince, it had very very little to do with vampires at all. In fact there is only a small fraction of the original Dracula in the novel. The reality, as portrayed in this movie, is very different. Vlad was a brutal ruler, and he had his reasons. To call him evil would be ignorant. In Romanian folklore Vlad is celebrated as a national hero, and many still today pray for his return. Vlad was a patriot who took it to the limit - and beyond - since it seemed necessary at his time and situation! As for historical facts I can't tell for sure how much of this movie is true, but my research so far tells me it's between 50-75%.

Go rent this movie if you'd like to get closer to knowing the real Dracula. I guarantee he's more interesting than Stokers!


OMG it was one of the best movies I have seen. Well Pirates of the Caribbean is first then Dark Prince The True Story of Dracula is the second. I loved it. Rudolf Martin was great for the part. He show anger and love and hate very well. anyway I thought Dracula was known as a vampire but when i saw this movie it changed i don't know if this is the absolute true story but it was still a very good movie. I hope that i get to see it again i just saw it on TV today and i thought it was very good I'm also the type of person to believe in that kind of stuff i like myths and true stories and vampires and people who cant die i dig that kind of stuff. i guess I'm kinda crazy but over all I LOVED IT.


If you are looking for the type of movie usually associated with the name Dracula, this isn't it. There is no blood sucking, cross and holy water fearing, and no burning in sunlight. This is a wonderful account of the legend/history of the man behind the myth. Dark Prince: The True Story of Dracula is a well-written, well-researched account of the legend of Prince Vlad III Dracula or Vlad the Impaler. His rise to power, his brutal means of torture and the loss of his wife to the madness that his ways caused her. Mr. Martin is a wonderful actor that gave his role as the Prince a 3 dimensional and more human outlook on the man who haunts history as a viscous and sadistic ruler with a taste for unnameable torture. Mr. Martin's supporting cast add fullness to the film and leaves little disappointment for viewers. Wonderful location shots and well-researched period costumes round out feel of this historically based film and add a touch of authenticity to the feel of the film.


A glorious rendition of Vlad's life, Mr. Martin plays the Impaler Prince with wonderous accuracy, his tooth-rattling intensity is in keeping with the most accurate historical documents regarding Vlad Tepes. Jane March is beautific as Lydia and the rest of the supporting cast excels as well. A must see.


This movie was so dark and creepy. It was perfect and the director was a genius. The scenes in it were so well-thought-out, and the costumes were fantastic. This all including the trueness of the plot. It said everything about what happened in Dracula's life. The Dark Prince is a must-see!


I've seen many documentries on Vlad Dracula, and even though this movie hits on some real points in the impailer's life I think it is more of a prequil to 1992's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" because it focuses on the love story between him and his queen almost mirroring in 90min the short prologue of Dracula '92.

Insted of hindering the show expanding that prologue to 90min makes this movie very enjoyable and worth watching. When I saw it I then watched "Bram Stoker's Dracula" skiping the prologue and it worked well as one movie even though the filming style is different.

Maybe Dracula 2000 will make this a good but unofficial trilogy?


This movie was very historically accurate, I was impressed. I'm not often impressed by movies...but this got me. The cast was marvelous, the acting was wonderful, and the scenery so beautiful. Maybe because it was shot in historically authentic locations of Romania.(the place where Dracula was born, died, etc. ) The acting was so dramatic and believable that I almost found myself in tears near the end... It also contained(or should I say didn't..) something that I wasn't very used to seeing in movies these days---it had no profanity, no suggestive actions....it was all real.


Even though there are no vampires. It was based on the TRUE story of Vlad the Impailor. I really enjoyed this documentary. And it was pretty funny seeing Rudolf playing Dracula again after his famous apperence on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" as Dracula as well. If you enjoy Dracula movies, I'm not sure if you would get into this. But if you are interested in learning about how Bram got his ideas, then watch it.

7/10


Movie, despite being kind of low-budget, was done very well. Only annoying thing was that the props and costumes seemed out of its time, and people looked too clean.

Plot is okay, but kind of unexplained. Like, how does Vlad get so much suppoert.

I liked the movie because it tries to clear up Vlad's name. Everybody looks at him as this evil-incarnate who killed people, but all that he wanted to do was liberate his people.

If you like those gloomy historical movies, then this is for you. I'm giving it 9/10.


It was very refreshing to view this Dracula film without the sexy women and the two(2) marks on their neck, like the Bela Lugosi classic films. I could write two-hundred words about this film and even tell you the ending. However, if you are a fan of Jane March (Lidia)"Amdnt,L" 91 you will love her performance as the wife of Rudolf Martin (Vlad the Impaler)"Swordfish" '01. Lidia plays a young sweet and innocent virgin who plans to become a Nun and is charmed by Vlad and the sparks fly immediately and the baby soon arrives. Peter Weller (Father Stefan) "Styx" '01 tries to prevent Dracula from spreading his evil in the world, unfortunately, Dracula movies must continue to be produced from one generation to another. If you like History of Dracula, this is the film for you!!


I saw the movie! How could you make so many mistakes in it? In 1464 Dracula was already in prison, his first son name was Mihnea, in 1456 Iancu Huniade died and the sultan that imprisoned the boys was Murat II!!and this are only the biggest mistakes. They are so many! so please, help me make the novel that i write, a movie! The truth story of Dracula. Please, I AM BEGGING YOU ALL. this IS MY Address. iris_2_you@yahoo.com!!!!help Dracula to go to the light by helping me tell the truth! god bless you all of you that will help me! you will see that my novel is great! Please, don't break my heart by ignoring this message! Maybe one day i will see my movie on a big white screen. And that will be for Vlad


Not sure what I expected when I started watching this movie. But as the movie progressed it got more interesting. Jack like most guys is either with or wants to be with many ladies throughout his life. Most is for the physical but a child is produced by one relationship that eventually brings love, responsibility, and sense of purpose to Jack's life. It's kind of a Kramer vs. Kramer as the relationship develops with his child on one hand and his many sexual encounters continues unabated until his love and responsibility for his son override his desire to see still more women.

In the end his relationship with his parents which has been strained through most of his life gets comfortable as he see life more clearly as a responsible father.

Watch for some very good acting and the efficient way the movie is cut and the story told. My only real complaint is the sound quality was poor and I found it hard to understand the dialog at times. I had to back up the TIVO a number of times to listen to the missed dialog and a few times I was not able to understand what was being said.


I was drawn into this unusual independent film on cable. I call it unusual because how often are men really truthful about their actions and desires? I felt the man who made this wanted to be understood.

If you like it, make sure to catch the follow-up film called "Manhood". I felt so lucky to stumble across it. The actors who play Jack, Faith, and their son are in this one too. How lucky is that! Jack's relationship with his son is touching, and rings very true.

I hope there will be a third installment here, making this a trilogy. Can Jack overcome his inner dog? I believe men are really like this, and am so impressed with the honesty here.

Just a note on the music, there is Bruce Springsteen music in both films. I don't think "The Boss" allowed his songs to be used here because he needed the money. Check it out!


This is one of those rare films that touch your funny-bone and your heart. It seems like a number of films (notably, 'About A Boy') have stolen from it, but that's probably the sincerest form of flattery. The acting is real and strong and the film-making is confident and innovative, though it's likely they had very little money as there are no dolly, crane, or steadicam shots. There are also an unbelievable number of attractive women in various stages of undress. Somehow this makes an interesting counterbalance to a show about divorce. The supporting players are all excellent. There are terrific cameos by Peter Coyote, Anthony Lapaglia, and Thomas Gibson. I very much liked the use of the black and white footage shot by the director, himself, in Paris. An added bonus for me was the soundtrack featuring two Bruce Springsteen songs which nicely compliment Pam Springsteen's black and white photographs. The original score by Christopher Franke is both stylish and moving.


Wow, this movie was amazing. Ladies, don't turn off the TV too quickly; even though the beginning may appear to be a "guy flick", this is a very moving film. TRUST ME, you'll end up wanting your boyfriend to see it because it clearly depicts what CAN happen when a boy doesn't know when to say "enough is enough" and take, albeit giant for some, that step into becoming a responsible man.

Being a young adult male, I was quite taken at the way I felt at the movie's conclusion in comparison to how I felt at it's opening. I actually laughed out loud at some of my own memories of the "dog days". I am grateful that, in my early 30's, I discovered things about women other than just sex. However, in Jack's case, the toll of his foolishness cost him something far greater than money or fame.

In my life, I have friends who resemble Jack. I only pray they will figure it all out before finding a wife and having children. Life is far too long to live it alone.

This movie will make you laugh and it will make you cry. Nestor and Andrew give an outstanding performance. And for all the "dogz" out there, this movie is packed with TNA. Uh, sorry about that .. I am a man, after all.


I saw this movie at the Sundance Film Festival, and it move me to tears, not only during the screening, but for days afterwards. The film was deep and beautiful, and I enjoyed every moment of it. This is a poignant piece of a father's struggle to find what love means to him, a search which he completes not through his dog-like love of women, but for his son, a true and more mature love. Anyone who dislikes this film is simply too ignorant to comprehend its scope and depth. I thought it was well written, well directed, well produced, and the acting was top notch. I give it two thumbs way up.


a movie with real heart that WILL NOT make you feel icky for liking that characters. Melba and Dottie are better people (and therefore better characters) than most down and outs in movies these days. The movie has a stunning lack of agenda - which is meant as a compliment in that it's emotional payoffs are earned and natural as opposed to being sickly or cynical. Bravo! Why can't they make sequels to little films with epic themes - this plays as a sort of Odyessy trailer park style. Plus, lets give the casting some points for inspiration. I know this movie is coming out on DVD soon, so everybody look out for it - it's a keeper.


I watched the movie, not by choice and I liked it! Though parts of the movie at times had that B flick actor/actress quality, it did have a unique plot.

I also started searching for the soundtrack and have been unsuccessful. Though Deborah Falconer has released an cd entitled: Brave Like Me with a song titiled (CD Release Date: 7/22/2003): "Show of Hands", it is not the same song as in the movie. I would appreciate any comments or links to a site that offers to sale the Sparkler soundtrack. Or, I would be willing to buy a copy from anyone interested offering?

"Show of Hands" Written by Deborah Falconer Performed by Deborah Falconer


Well first of all I have to say I mainly rented this since I found out that Jamie Kennedy was in it, and I didn't think it'd be that good because well I was only 13-years-old thinking this would be boring. I was wrong though and this turned out to be my favorite independent film by far... It starts off with A 30-something trailer-park lady Melba May (Park Overall)who finds her husband cheating on her with a friend and she soon goes out for the night to "celebrate her freedom". Before she goes to a nearby diner, the calls a psychic who tells her that she will bump into three kings. Well she didn't know that when she went to the diner, that three young guys Trent, Joel, and Brad were her three kings, who were on there way to Las Vegas to win money so they could pay rent. Anyways, many things happen to them all, and some of them have secrets that nobody else ever knew before. This movie shows a variety of people who are diverse and teaches you a few lessons about life. Great cast, great script, every actor gave this movie something that most big blockbuster type films can't.


I avoided this movie for the longest time because of the video box, which prominently features Jamie Kennedy and Freddie Prinze Jr. Ugh. However, upon renting it, I was pleasantly surprised. It's actually a unexpectedly entertaining, well-written and acted indie film about a trailer trash chick who dumps her loutish husband and searches for independence. Along the way, she meets up with the before-mentioned teen hearthrobs and acts as a catalyst for their own personal growing experiences. The director imbues his material with a caustic, cynical edge which is refreshingly unique for this type of film, and thankfully prevents it from degenerating into sappy, maudlin Oprah-style "I am woman hear me roar!" melodrama. Park Overall is excellent in the title role, but the real surprise here is Veronica Cartright - who demonstrates more of the comic genius she displayed in "The Witches of Eastwick." Some of her lines had me rolling on the floor.


This film is about a middle aged woman, Melba May (Park Overall,) who has big dreams, but is going nowhere. She lives in a trailer, in Nevada, with her husband Flint (Don Harvey.) One night Melba catches Flint with another woman, and leaves him. She decides to go to Vegas to meet up with an old friend from high school, Dottie Delgato (Veronica Cartwright,) who's dreams went where she wanted them. But when Melba finds her, she finds out Dottie's dreams only lasted temporarily.

Back at home, Flint gets a knock on his door, finding out that Melba just won a million dollars. But only Melba can expect it. So Flint goes off to find her, basically to kidnap her, so he can keep the money himself. It was only possible for Melba to get to Vegas by three young agents from Hollywood, off to Vegas to make money. This movie is an okay movie. I'd give it a 7/10, only because I didn't expect much from it. It's better as a movie made for TV.


GREAT first effort film. Gets better with each viewing. PLEASE don't let Freddy (I can't act, but my wife can) Prinze scare you away - there's a nifty little jewel here. A unique and poignant story being told here...for anyone that's ever felt like their life lacks the "spark" they've always dreamed of. Very sweet...


Good balance of older character actresses shining alongside some of Hollywood's rising young male stars. This comedy/drama will appeal to arthouse audiences as well as the "Scream" crowd who get to see their pin-up boys (Jamie Kennedy, Freddie Prinze Jr.) shine in roles with a little more meat than their slasher flick appearances have allowed. Park Overall and Veronica Cartwright are phenomenal (Cartwright's two years of Emmy nominations in '97 & '98 are no fluke - she can do anything). Very good movie that will appeal to all types.


Junk. Pure and simple.

An unnecessary and useless sequel to the self-mocking and campy comedy/horror Lake Placid. Not one of the original cast signed on for this dog, a very good decision on their part. Well, the baby crocodiles you see in the closing of the other movie apparently have grown up, and now have decided to pick up where their parents left off, and eat lots of people.

John Schneider is the sheriff, and just grins a lot. Cloris Leachman reprises Betty White's nut job (as her sister), but without the funny lines. A big game hunter with grenade launchers fails to match Oliver Platt's role, and the Bridgette Fonda look-alike also does nothing. Sheriff John has summertime custody of a poor actor teen son, in order to introduce some annoying cardboard cutout screaming teens. Since Croc Jr. seems to have an appetite for annoying cardboard cutout screaming teens, you quickly realize what their function to the story is, and you find yourself rooting for the croc to eat them as soon as possible. There's one idiotic scene, apparently ripped off from the 3 Stooges, where a croc victim is talking while the creature behind him waits patiently for him to shut up, before devouring him.

Nothing interesting happens. Really a bad movie, that fails at both horror and comedy. All it does is waste your time.


with a few nods to the original film, including Cloris Leachman playing the sister of Betty White's unforgettable foul-mouthed character from the original, this film tries to step up to the plate. apparently set a few years after the original, there are suddenly more deaths, and, guess what? a croc in the lake. actually, 3 this time around. John Schneider plays the sheriff and a cast of "looks-familiar-but-don't-know their-name" fills in the rest of the menu. the CGI is there, really noticeable and really bad, as it is in most of the sci-fi channel movies. at least there are some good-looking stereotyped kids thrown into the mix this time, camping at the lake at the worst possible time. David Kelly's original script had some intelligence, great character development and nicely-done humor that is really missing here. i give them credit for trying, but it's lacking...well....almost everything.


I'd seen Lake Placid at a friend's house one night, and thought it entertaining, so I was happy to see a sequel was going to be shown. Now though, I have to say I wish they hadn't bothered. Overall, the movie is just poorly done. The acting is terrible; even John Schneider, who I usually enjoy, disappointed me. I'd equate the acting in the film with a middle school performance. And something was off with the sound- it almost sounds like they pre-recorded all the lines, and just matched it up with the film.

The special effects, if possible, are even worse than the acting. Very fake looking, and extremely amateur; this looks like a high school project! There are several times when you can see parts of the crocodiles magically pass through things.

On the plus side, little as it is, some of the characters were mildly entertaining in the sense that the acting was so terrible. There's one actor in particular who screamed like a girl, and that made me laugh. I'll also add that if you saw and liked the first, you may want to watch this just to satisfy your curiosity. Beyond that though, it's not worth it.


The first Lake Placid was the type of movie that you loved or hated. I loved it. The actors had chemistry. The script was clever. The key was to take it for what it was. A lot of people did and it developed a cult following.

I wanted to love II. But, it wasn't there. I think they tried. But chemistry and hitting the exact same note is hard. I think they put together a good cast. The writing was supposed to make you grin. It just didn't pull together tight enough. Nice Try. Lake Placid a tough film to duplicate on any level.

I think a lot of the fans of the first one went into it with the right frame of mind. If you didn't see the first one you may not understand the choices they went with as far as corny dialogue and silliness. Maybe they can bring back Ms. Fonda for 3!


I've come to expect very little out of the SciFi channel's made for TV movies, but this ranks tight alongside of "Babylon 5: Legend of the Rangers" as am egregious example of how SciFi's clueless network suits can prostitute a great work with an appallingly bad sequel.

I'm a great fan of the original "Lake Placid". David E. Kelly's writing in the original is among the sharpest of any film in memory. It had a delightfully witty script and excellent performances by talented actors. The characters were well textured without a stereotype among them.

By comparison, the script of this film is drek. Thre is almost no wit evident. It's trite and formulaic. The characters are all 2-dimensional stereotypes from central casting. The "special" effects were everything I've come to expect from SciFi channel movies - ham-fisted and amateurish.

I might have given this film a rating of 2 or 3, but for potentially tainting the reputation of the original, I give it a 1 - but only because there's no option to give it a zero!


I never saw the original, but I watched about an hour's worth of Lake Placid 2 and I have to say, it SUCKED! The story is basically the same as every other giant water monster movie: numerous deaths that happen around the lake, town panics, the sheriff goes in with a bunch of guys to take out whatever is causing them. Let's not forgot the 5 idiotic teenagers that have a run-in with the movie's giant crocodile.

Let me get this off my back. Sci Fi Original movies are known for their suckiness, but in this case, it's more painful to hear the script, then was in "Minotaur". The sheriff is a complete idiot who is supposed to be the protagonist who seems to be so stupid that he acts casual even when he sees a giant crocodile eat a live man. The acting is so horrible and the script is just barely at the level of "Uwe Boll" quality. After the first death, you are introduced to a team of hunters who are hoping to get a little moolah for the creature that killed some fat guy in the beginning of the movie. The leader of this team has the WORST Scotish accent I have ever heard and hearing him and the Sheriff chat about guns and whether or not the lead female, Emma, likes him the most is so painful to hear that you just scream "SHUT UP!!!" at your TV. It is just surprising for me to see how unaffected a bunch of morons are when facing a giant reptile and how casual they act even when someone was just eaten.

Then, there are the most annoying actors and actresses in the whole movie, even worse than the sheriff's acting. The sheriff's son who is there to visit his dad and is pretty bummed out of the fact that there isn't any cable, high-speed Internet, or cell phone reception located in the middle of hick country. Then, somehow, he gets involved with some girl, who he fancies, a guy in a tight white t-shirt who, I guess, is her boyfriend or something, a Paris-Hilton copy, and the drooling slob who wants to get in the Paris-Hilton copy's pants.

These teenagers are not only bad acting, but they are DEAF! There are two examples of this: One is when Paris Hilton dies. While Slob, or Larry, is swimming around in the lake, somehow, a 20-foot-long croc is able to sneak past him and up to Paris' feet and she says "Larry, you pervert, get away from my feet." And gets eaten and you are happy that she is dead because that means that 10% of the bad script has been cut off from your ears (if they aren't bleeding already). The second example is when the sheriff's son, the girl he likes, and the girl's 'boyfriend' find a crocodile's nest and (of course) the retarded boyfriend starts crushing eggs, making a bad joke like "I know what kind of egg this is. Scrambled." Then, the mom croc comes back and gives that "Oh no you didn't" impression and comes up behind the boyfriend, snarling and breathing loudly and even when the girl says "There's a giant crocodile behind you!", he thinks it's a joke and still doesn't appear to hear the croc that is about 3 feet from him! He dies, thank God, and then, (even though when she said "There's a giant crocodile behind you!", the girl runs into the forest with the son and asks him "What was that thing?" and the son replies "I don't know, but I bet it is what laid those eggs!" That's when I turned off my TV and got onto my computer to warn you all about this horrible movie.

I am usually VERY generous toward so-good-they're-bad movies, but in this case, if someone who has seen "House of the Dead" and "Bloodrayne" from start-to-finish actually turns off the TV after watching an hour of "Lake Placid 2", you know you have a problem. Though it is clear that very few people will buy this movie, I don't recommend renting it and if you see it re-running on Sci Fi, turn the channel QUICKLY! Unlike "House of the Dead", it isn't a bad movie that is funny to watch because of how much effort was put into it, it's just an all-out bad movie that Sci Fi can add to their quite long "Flops" list.


Everything about this so called "movie" screams 3rd rate. It is a pathetic attempt to cash in on a film that wasn't very good or successful to begin with! Why this got made, who knows. The script is laughable, the effects are worse than video-games, and the plot is really dumb. Don't waste your time, hell if you read this, you have spent too much time on this waste of celluloid. Every time you think movies can't get any worse, they do. I would be ashamed to have anything to do with this garbage. Here's the plot, let's kill these gators. The main characters are exactly the same as the 1st film too! Not the same actors mind you, but the exact same character. The little old lady who likes the croc's, the rich guy trying to kill them, even the beginning is almost exactly as the 1st film. I would recommend this to people that want to know what makes a bad movie, because this describes this "not even worthy of being called a film."


Sci-Fi channel movies are notorious for their constant cheeziness. This one should be perched at the very top of the heap. Since I loved the original, LAKE PLACID, I thought this might be at least an interesting experience. From the first scene to the last, this garbage proved that there are still Neanderthals out there in the movie making business. In the first shot, we see two men in a boat. One of them is quickly gobbled up by a giant croc. His companion merely stares at the water, blinks his eyes and says "Oh, my God!" in the next scene, he is in the sheriff's office and has told his story to the deputies. Their reactions? They all sit around whooping and giggling and nudging each other as if they've heard the funniest joke of the year. And then the sheriff drops in and asks this survivor what his problem is and the survivor merely shrugs and says "there's a problem" out there on the lake. Even after the sheriff is nearly swallowed alive by the creature, he's joking and laughing just seconds later. In fact, no one in the miserable cast ever act as if they're in any danger at all. After every death, they're all joking and laughing and skipping along as if nothing has happened. We're treated--if that's the word--to several scenes of the girls stripping off their bras. I guess we're supposed to be panting with passion at this. One of the craziest scenes is when the hot-headed jerk is mouthing off to his two companions how he would never ever believe there's a monster croc. One slips up right behind him, less than two feet away. His two companions merely stare and say, "Eh, you'd better come along." They act as if there's a squirrel or a possum just a few feet away from them. Of course, the hot-headed jerk is swallowed alive and his companions skip away. And then one of them says, "I can't believe I saw that." The special effects are the type you'd find in an elementary school room. this would be a perfect laugh-out-loud movie to watch along with that other much-praised masterpiece of lousiness: HANDS OF MANOS.


Lake Placid 2 is the sequel to the not so good Lake Placid. This movie stinks beyond undescribable words but I will try.

The acting is terrible. It seems as though a page of script was written and shot at the same time. When the crocidile attacks, most of the characters seem so calm about it, even making jokes after one of their own has just been killed. I thought that maybe John Schneider might be the actor in the film but that honor goes to the dog in the film.

Of course, the acting is only one flaw in this film. Another flaw is the script itself. The dialogue is incredibly bad and there are many scenes that just seem to make no sense.

The most important part of the film is it's direction. David Flores who is not noted for anything major but I can't seen a great future for this guy. There are many continuity mistakes and the characters all seem stiff...The special effects are terrible. I am sure that in today's era that even a made for TV movie can have decent special effects. The Crocidile looks awful and the death scenes are just garbage. There is no fear in this film.

Sometimes I enjoy watching these ridiculous movies for a nice laugh but I couldn't even enjoy it as a bad movie. If you want to see a good terrible movie, than watch other Made for Sci Fi movies like Crocidile and Crocidile 2...They are much better yet still terrible.


Unfortunately I didn't get to watch this on SciFi originally but saw a copy recently since they're releasing it to DVD soon(www.lakeplacid2dvd.com).

After hearing Schneider was taking the lead I thought this could have gone somewhere. His acting was tolerable, and the characters were mildly entertaining, but the low budget sequel was simply that.

It was so evident David Flores was trying to not only live up to the original, but to mimic it, painstakingly. From the plot, to the character quirks, even to the shocking one liners, we can see his aims at cult classic stardom. It falls horribly short, making for one amusing B movie wannabe.

You watch a B movie for the unreal script and crappy effects anyway, why not take it a step farther. Our affinity towards flicks like Snakes on a Plane or Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, and any other horror-comedy is our intense desire to see some clever crap.

Lake Placid 1 was clever crap, Lake Placid 2 was crap that tries to be clever. And it's awesome watching the no name production team try.

Who takes this kind of thing seriously anyway? My opinion is, it's worth the $4 movie rental. Kick back on a Wednesday night with a couple of beers, and I guarantee the banter between you and your buddies will be well worth your time. There's a couple of KILLER one liners that'll make their way into your hall of shame quote book, guaranteed.


I watched about 30 minutes of this movie and the acting was just horrible. I looked they were reading off the tree or something. The special effects of that crocodile were so awful. The look as the crocodile ate it's victims didn't look as if they fit together. The CGI is horrible and the guy throwing the eggs is just stupid. Then the other guy says that they are chicken eggs. The eggs are about 20 pounds each! Who wrote these lines in this movie? Obviously this guy has never seen an egg in his whole life. Please, I beg the people out there to never see this movie. Even if you are bored out of your gored there are many more things better to do than watch this movie. Watching the toilet flush is more exciting.


All I can say is this was the worst remake of an original decent horror film I have ever witnessed. First of all, Cloris Leachman must have been desperate and in need of money to appear in this debacle. She must have been aware too because the Sci-Fi channel didn't even mention her name in the credits. Who wrote the scene (ought to be flogged) where she as 'Sadie Bickerman' was attempting to push the young girl off the dock to feed the gator? All I could think of was the fairy tale Hansel & Gretel where the wicked witch was trying to push Gretel into the oven.

So many visual errors too. One in particular shows Deputy Davis blow up one of the gators with a 'super gun' after which he and his son return to the ranger station. Deputy Davis then (alone) leaves for the hunt again this time armed with a 'rifle', two bags of meat and some C-4 over his shoulder. Later in the woods when the chips are down and the gators attack, lo and behold out comes the 'super gun'....where'd that come from? He didn't have it when he returned to the hunt!

The ending if you can call it that shows the victors (surviving cast members) riding off to 'Bangor' in a pickup truck to get something to eat. WHAT! Who could eat after watching this?

Of course, unknown to Deputy Dawg, one of the 'gator' eggs was salvaged and in a case on the front seat for examination at the 'lab'. Thank my lucky stars it ended here. I fully expected to see the egg hatch while they were lunching on 'gator burgers' in Bangor and escape to bring on a sequel to this thing they called a movie. The director came to his senses and called it day and we all will live happily ever after.

Jakeman97


This movie is not only a waste money, it took away 60 minutes of what I could have used as extra sleep. I was at my girl's house and popped this in at 10 p.m., knowing that I had work the next day, I waited for the movie to pick up, while trying to hold myself from busting up from the ridiculous acting, poor script, and CGI that was probably generated by the Director's 6th grader son, hoping that in the next few minutes the movie would offer something interesting. But after seeing the Ahmad guy tell his boss that he's finish doing deeds for him and then minutes later he tries to save his life, I just couldn't sit there anymore, I turned the damn thing off before my exhaustion drive me to aggravation and might just break the damn DVD which I didn't want to end up paying for. Avoid this movie at all cost, if you ever did something for 84 minutes that you wished you'll never do again, you should consider that instead of watching this garbage.


I really liked the first one, I thought it was well cast and written. So they made a sequel. It was like one of those Star Trek fan videos you see, where they make their own version of Star Trek. It's got amateurish acting, directing, special effects and only the die hard fans would find it entertaining. I don't know if this sequel was made by a die hard fan of the original, but it was written, cast and had special effects worthy of any Star Trek fan movie.

Let's just forget about the bad acting and special effects from 1990. How this script was okayed and I don't just mean by the director or producers, but the actors, is a mystery. Surely when they were reading their part they had to have went at some point "man, there's no way in the world someone would act this way at this point." The Sheriff's co-worker is brutally eaten by the croc and he's laughing and and hitting on the woman shortly after. In fact numerous people he knows are killed and he's worried about getting the money for his boats that were destroyed. After a terrible 24 hours of battling crocs and seeing numerous people beheaded, having limbs torn from their bodies and chopped up by the crocs, he drops off his son with a girl and jokingly says "okay, I'm trusting you!" Then in the car with the hot chick, they're talking about going to dinner and "no talking about your ex-wife." Yeah, forget about the fact we just witnessed what should have been the most horrifying 24 hours a human would have to go through in real life, you better not talk about your ex while I'm eating dinner. At no point does the idiot feel any remorse for losing what were supposed to be people he knew well.

The acting was terrible and as is the case in every single one of these idiotic movies, we get yet another son who doesn't like his dad and doesn't want to be there. The son is a jerk and hates life. Poor son. Of course in this particular instance, to no one's surprise with this awful casting, the son is probably about five years younger than the dad.

Of course, everyone is a jerk in this movie and you don't even get the satisfaction of wanting them to get eaten by the crocs because the special effects are so awful, the amateurs on the Star Trek fan films are actually better. At no point do you actually think anyone is getting eaten by anything. It's baffling that a movie that obviously put some money into it could have effects this bad.

The script was terrible and I'll only give you one example of some of the amazingly terrible attempts at humor:

Girl: You're a jerk

Guy (to assistant): I think she likes me.

Yikes. There is someone in this world who actually thought that would be funny. I've seen better written dialog in a porno. I'm not kidding. Some of the dialog will make you cringe. THIS is why you do more than one draft of a script, folks.

Avoid this movie.


Everyone in this film takes it too seriously. Its not tongue in cheek at all, it looks like it thinks it's a real movie, which is what makes it so terrible. The actors look like they actually think that there's a croc near this lake... When clearly, and I mean, clearly, this is not the case. It's very likely that there was as much money thrown at this as there was at the opening titles of Superman, which I also watched today (thought 'was much better', incidentally).

Oh, look, a fluffy white bunny rabbit! What the hell is such a clean rabbit doing at a dirty lake anyway? Schnieder looking in surprise at his poking stick after its been bitten off... Right after a 40 foot croc eats the pig on the other end of it? What did he expect? Maybe he's shocked that he accepted this script! If the FX weren't so horribly bad (I assume they were made on a Commodore 64) it wouldn't be so horrible (the script still needs some work), but they are so amateur and dated that the film simply can't be taken seriously at all, making the performances seem ridiculously over acted, (the performances that is, not the 'actors' that turned up for one day of shooting to take their clothes off, stage some unconvincing scenes and swim in filthy lake). The glorious special FX of, say, Tarantula (1955), spring to mind.

And cheap cheap cheap. Sometimes the croc doesn't even look like a croc (the dummy they actually hired (sometimes its not C64 animation, but not much), but more so a big pile of crap floating on the water. It's a paradox, they actually use the finished film as a prop on the movie Schnieder would be less annoying if he wasn't grinning like a lunatic for half the film (though he can recognize which of the teens is dead from his sneaker (cause there's only 7 in town)), but McMurray is kinda funny, however not enough to stop me from writing a scathing review whilst I actually watch it to make it more fun.

It lacks pretty much everything the first one has, in fact, it pretty much lacks everything any film has, which is unfortunate as I have nothing else new to watch tonight.

**SPOILER** The dog survives.

Maybe *I* should've faked *my* own death!


A sheriff(John Schneider, really stuck with some corner one liners when he blasts the monsters)must contend with several large crocodiles which are eating locals. His past lady-love, Helen(Sarah Lafleur), an animal conservationist, along with an egotistical wealthy hunter(Sam McMurray)and his sidekick Ahmed(Joe Holt)will assist the sheriff in his duties to take each croc out. They try to pry knowledge about these crocs from Sadie Bickerman(Cloris Leachman, the only thing that works in this film is her nasty loathsome character who loves the crocs more than people)who loves her "babies" and seems unwilling to give them jack squat. Making matters worse is that the sheriff's son(Chad Collins), and his love-interest Kerri(Alice Ziegler)are fending for their lives after a couple of the crocs devoured their high school pals.

Leave it to the always reliable Sci-Fi Channel to drop another rotten giant monster movie of low quality in our laps..this one having the misfortune of being a sequel to the entertaining B-movie that came out year back from writer David E Kelley and director Steve Minor. While that film had a very enjoyable cast consisting of Bill Pullman, Bridget Fonda, Oliver Platt & especially scene-stealing Betty White(..Chloris plays Betty's sister in the sequel), this sequel has no-names with limited ability to even convey a minuscule of charm. It could be because the dialogue is so laughable and special effects so poor. How can anyone, much less Schneider proclaim the quip, "Afterwhile, Crocodile!"and make it work?


I kept trying to figure out if "Lake Placid 2" was supposed to take place in Maine, like the sequel was, because everyone in this movie has that Southern drawl. Then I see signs for Maine, Arostook County, etc. etc. and I'm like, apparently the directors think a Maine accent and a Southern accent are one and the same. It's an insult to the great state of Maine. Also, the one girl says she's going to Boston College and will be moving to Newton, which she describes as "south of Boston." No, it's not. Newton is west of Boston. So, apparently the folks who did this movie have no concept for geography. As for the movie itself, it's like "Lake Placid" except not nearly as good. The Betty White role of the weird old lady is taken over by Cloris Leachman, who is not nearly as hilarious. The crocodile stomp-a-thon was entertaining, but there wasn't enough of it. And that's the silly love-interest plot line that nobody cares about. Overall, there are worse crocodile movies (i.e., "Blood Surf"), but you could do better.


So last night, me and my roommate decide to watch it. We both liked the first one, so of course we are going to watch the second. Big mistake... Every so often I would see my roommates head just shaking, and he would then laugh or comment about what we just saw- never a good comment.

The Graphics were just bad, the crocs just looked so fake- the skin, movement, reactions, explosions. Even the air plane was fake. The acting was below par. At least in the first one they had real choppers and planes and such, and the croc looked a lot better in the first.

The only thing I saw hope in was the fact that Cloris Leachman was part of the film (always been great in her past roles), and she did a decent job in this role as well. She could have done a lot better than this film though . The basic story line wasn't too bad; but I have yet to see a great story line on crocs or gators.

There are also tech problems in the film. Just things that do not truly add up or that make sense. The killing of the crocs with a knife/blade, the eggs, the explosions, the eating of the people.

It feels like they just through this movie together. Not much effort put into it. They could have put a lot more effort into this film, to do it justice. Instead they let it flop... So I would say, spend your time watching something else.

Actually now that I think about it, this movie is very similar to Jaws, maybe thats why the story line works. But again they didn't do it justice.

It was a good laugh though, some funny moments, and just looking at what happens. You just want to laugh at its stupidity.


i saw LAKE PLACID some months a go, and i thought it was pretty decent, not the best alligator movie out there, but i stayed awake. it was kind of funny though, to see betty white, a calm harmless woman be the caretaker of a monster. so LAKE PLACID was an okay movie. 2/5. but when i found out there was going to be a LAKE PLACID 2, i was so excited. i thought, "wow, lake placid's makin' a comeback!". i saw it when it premiered in April. I was shocked. this was the dumbest film ever, next to Cruel Jaws. the funniest/dumbest scene was that part when that girl says to the guy "stop touching my feet" and it turns out to be the 45 foot croc. how does she attempt to rescue herself? she swats the croc with the magazine she's holding like she's trying to swat a fly! she gets what she deserves, and the acting is just horrible. this film was basically a rip off of TREMORS (four predators) and ALLIGATOR. 1/10


Okay, so first of all, this movie is a MAJOR MAJOR insult to the first one AND movies everywhere. When I saw this movie I couldn't imagine what must have been going on in these peoples minds!!!! The actors and actresses must have been paid extremely high to do this because I'm sure they would have never done it on a regular budget. This is so bad of a movie, I just can't comprehend how these people could ever imagine this thing up. I would have to say that no one should watch this movie and if you have watched it, I feel your pain. The effects were horrible, dialogue was terrible, and the whole entire story, directing, etc. was terribly horrific. If you liked the first one stop right there, and do not go any further with this film, PLEASE, DON'T GO FURTHER.....


The humor in this film is much more irony based... the original Lake Placid was intended to be much more genuinely scary, this one will actually provide some good laughs if you go into it looking for the irony not the scare factor.

The CGI in this movie is sub-par, but I think that this was somewhat intentional, it adds to the b-movie feel. The movie is not realistic, if it was it would be perceived as taking itself to seriously and would be stupid.

Go into this movie looking for laughs and you will get them. Go into this movie looking for scares and you will come up disappointed.


When I heard that the Sci-Fi Channel was doing a Lake Placid 2 with John Schneider, I was looking forward to it.

But after 20 minutes, I couldn't believe how bad it was.

The acting is the worst acting I have ever seen/heard. It sounds like this movie was shot in a foreign country and dubbed in English. Except that all of these actors are Americans who speak English and this was filmed for Television, which means they didn't have to dub the bad language.

I actually enjoy many of Sci-Fi's B movies. But this is one of the worst I've ever seen. The special effects are awful, which is surprising since I've seen Sci-Fi do better with other movies.

I'd recommend watching the original Lake Placid instead of wasting the two hours watching this sequel. You will certainly enjoy it more.


I am absolutely stunned that this "movie" actually made it to completion. You would have thought that somebody would have had the common sense to cease production early on,just for humanitarian reasons. I think I may be permanently scarred for the 60 minutes or so that I can never get back. I actually lost some brain cells by watching this. Awful acting by everybody, even the dog. Awful special effects - middle school quality. Awful dialog - grade school quality. This movie is truly as bad as you can get. The bottom of the barrel. I never thought ANY movie could come close to the horrific drivel in Showgirls but I was wrong. People, this movie is as bad as it gets. Everybody associated with this garbage should be shot. If you haven't watched this movie, don't even consider it. Be afraid. Be very afraid.


This is far and away, one of, if not the worst movie I have ever watched... I say watched, as I had to stop half an hour in as it was so bad, I couldn't stand to watch any more! I enjoyed the first one, but this was just absolute gash; it seemed that they tried to copy the characters from the original movie (which was enjoyable enough) with newer, different versions- and they failed miserably. It seems that a lot of the movie has been dubbed for some reason(?) and that the cast have been told to act as badly as they possibly can- which they have all excelled at spectacularly! I can't deride this movie- and its terrible CGI/Special(!) effects enough. 30 minutes of my life that I'll never get back! On the plus side, at least I didn't watch it all!!! Shockingly bad!


In case you're not aware, the original Lake Placid was a movie about giant crocodiles eating people in New York's very own Lake Placid.

Here we have the sequel, Lake Placid 2, which takes place in Maine, in a lake that is not called Lake Placid... but let's not sweat the details.

After the astonishing success of Lake Placid 1, I can't blame the director for sticking to the plan - 5 minutes into the movie, we find ourselves knee deep in 40 foot crocodiles that have been raised by none other than the sister of the woman who raised the original crocodiles - talk about a family affair!

Honestly, I loved the movie - the acting was fantastic, and I couldn't help but feel that I was right there in the action, watching some fool get eaten by a crocodile. And when the small town sheriff shows us all that he is an expert with an MGL Grenade Launcher, well, let's just say I called up my local movie store and reserved ten copies.


The worst movie I've ever seen, hands down. It is ten times more a rip-off of Lake Placid than it is a sequel. Director David Flores clearly did not go to film school, and the way his cast delivers they're lines, you'd think they were learning English for the first time. Not even Cloris Leachman tries. The first Nintendo games had more convincing special effects. Needless to say I didn't make it to the end of Lake Placid 2, but you don't need to watch more than five minutes to know that this is the biggest waste of celluloid in modern film. Do not let your love of the original tempt you to try this, even if you know it's bad. It's a turkey, no not even a turkey, it's nothing.


Today I thought I'd give it a whirl and watch a sequel to a funny but quite thrilling and scary at times. I thought this would follow in the original's footsteps but I was wrong!

The first thing I noticed was the painfully bad, stiff and empty acting from EVERY single soul in this movie! They wander around a set that looks like somebody's back garden and scream all over the place and chant irrelevant and childish comments that don't add to the plot or character. The acting itself is so hammy, it almost resembles a 1950's toothpaste advert!

The second but the most important thing which made me laugh but in two halves was the effects: its the 21st century and it made me feel sick to watch a computer generated crocodile super-imposed onto the screen so badly when movies in the 30's had better effects than this trash!

Overall I did have some laughs with this film but for all the wrong reasons: 1) Acting is beyond terrible and sets another all time low for future crap movies 2)Special effects are not special at all and they look like they were designed and filmed by a bunch of college students with a £200 budget. 3)It irritates me that in this day and age, people still make this drivel and why would they bother if they know they're not going to do a worthy job of it.


It was a late night and I was scanning through the channels when I stopped on Sci/Fi. Lake Placid 2 was on and it looked kind of interesting, so I started watching it. About two hours later, a piece of myself died inside. This movie is one of the biggest pieces of fecal matter that I have ever watched in my entire life! It's just awful! Okay, the premise of the story is that there's some lake called Lake Placid, aw there's the title tie in, and there is a giant crocodile that likes to gobble anybody up who decide to visit it's lovely little home.

So, some kids decide that they want to camp out right on the bank of the lake, like the dumb f**ks that they are. A couple get gobbled up and there's panic on the lake. Then comes a man who puts Steve Irwin to shame, let's call him "The Crocodile Catcher" and he has a black slave.

When he first comes into the movie you will see that he has a CGI puddle jumper airplane. Was the budget so small, that they couldn't afford a f**king puddle jumper? But that doesn't matter. They find the crocodile some spoilers happen, some people die, some people show their boobs, people die, animals die, people die, some crappy dialog his spoken that makes me embarrassed to be alive, some people die, some people die, some people die, then the movie is over, your soul is reaped, and you wish that you had a time machine so that you could go back in time and stop yourself from watching this movie.

What I don't understand is that somebody actually thought this would be profitable. The first movie sucked, so why make a sequel? Everything that happens in the movie is so clichéd that you just sit there saying "Oh, I really didn't expect that to happen, I lied."

Don't buy it, don't rent it, don't think about. It's a bunch of crap!


The acting was terrible. Presumably John Schneider was once talented, but he left it all in the dressing room this round. Sarah Lafleur, another of those attractive Canadian women, isn't too bad, but she plays too bland. Cloris Leachman is, pardon my opinion, too old. Lillian Gish could pull it off at this age, but not Miss Leachman, I'm afraid. Everyone else seems to have escaped from middle school drama class. Maybe it was the directing....

The CGI gators are mediocre. I mean, they don't look "real", but they do look mean. And the script. Ah, the script. It seems they run out of stuff to say/do, so they invent another gator. Even their "keeper" thought there were only three.

But, the action never stops. The sheriff's son, after a bad false start, turns out to have major cojones. There is never a need to fast forward through the ennui. And, although I don't think they really meant it to be, this flick is really funny. It is a hoot. With a little more panache and pizazz, Schneider could have really hopped it up. Maybe it was the directing...


This Sci-Fi original is littered with the worst stereotypes, really really BAD acting, and Ian Reed Kesler's moobs. (man-chest) Oy the moobs! His chest is actually more ample than either of the gals'. And this poor unfortunate actually appears on screen without a shirt! I hope they paid him well for this public humiliation! I knew soon after that it was time to turn the channel.

I enjoy Brendan Gleeson in the original so much I HAD to watch this, as I almost bought it sight-unseen. I am SO glad I didn't. The problem is that every principal from the original film has been replaced by something lesser. Instead of Hector Cyr who is an intelligent character addition to the LP team, we have Struthers the Big Game Hunter and his big black hunter/attendant. I think they actually did research to include as many racial and sexual stereotypes as possible. Compared to this film, the original is Oscar-worthy.

And then there is the bad acting. I mean these performances are awful! No one in here acts like they had a moment of training, experience, or talent. Unfortunately, John Schneider is piled in with these inept wannabes. I mean...I wanted to like this, but in spite of John Schneider's and Cloris Leachman's involvement, there is VERY little to like herein. Horrible performances, terrible direction, inadequate film quality (M4TV), the worst Scottish accent in the history of film, and the most inept CGI since Ang Lee's The Hulk (2003) the render this production completely unwatchable. It DOES, however, make me enjoy the original all the more. I'm SO glad I didn't just buy this on DVD. Ack!

BUT...there are some good kills and if it's splatter you're after, you might actually like this. As nasty as this is, it just might find a niche with Creature Feature aficionados who also happen to be splatter fans. Giallo fans may also like this. So, there you are.

It rates a 4.6 on the Made For Television Scale.

It rates a 2.2/10 on the Movie Scale from...

the Fiend :.


I saw Hellbent near the end of the Philadelphia Gay and Lesbian Film Festival. I'm so glad I saw it when I did - it was a super finale to the film festival. Hellbent is great fun, probably the most fun I've had in years during a horror flick. It delivers on all counts - it's scary as hell (sorry, I couldn't resist!), gruesome in a couple of well placed scenes, and funny without weakening the tension. In fact, it's one of the scariest films I've seen in quite some time. In addition, the action revolves around five hunky gay men who are pursued by the psycho slasher - a refreshing and welcome change.

Four gay men go out in West Hollywood on Halloween night to have a good time, unaware that the previously mentioned psycho slasher has his eye on them. The boys party like only gay men can, and one of them talks to another hunk that he's seen around who joins them. One by one the boys are picked off until the final confrontation. What makes this film differ from others in the horror/slasher genre is the concentration on and the respect for the characters of the film. Paul Etheredge-Ouzts develops well-fleshed characters for the film, giving the performers much to work with in the story. The cast is terrific, in addition to being great to look at. Matt Phillips is particularly effective, funny and even touching, showing the vulnerability of his character even through drag.

I had the opportunity to meet Paul Etheredge-Ouzts and Matt Phillips at the film festival. I was fortunate to be able to compliment them on their great work for Hellbent. I hope to see Hellbent again soon when it's released on a national scale. It's great fun - and I'll be looking for Hellbent 2 soon!


We screened this film at the reelout queer film festival in Kingston last month. The producers wouldn't send us a preview copy of the movie, ensuring us that it was of fine quality and would pack the seats. Well they were right. I'm a huge slasher buff and prefer the old school 70s/early 80s style slice and dice flicks to the lame self-referential ones today. Maybe it was the graininess of the 35mm print the studio sent, but I felt like I was watching a film made during that era. The film wasn't at all camp, (something one naturally would expect from a gay horror movie) in fact, it was pretty darn intense. And the creators of the film were damn smart to write sympathetic characters we could relate to. This movie shouldn't be classified as a "gay" movie, anyone who enjoys slasher flicks with likable characters to cheer on will enjoy it. I hope it becomes available on DVD soon and look forward to the inevitable sequel HellBent... er?


Being a gay man and a horror movie fan I was really looking forward to seeing this...but it's really not that good.

Film begins with two men making out in a car--until they are attacked and beheaded by a guy in a Satan suit. The next day is Halloween and four gay friends are attending the party in West Hollywood. They all fit the typical slasher film stereotypes: the nice guy (Dylan Fergus); the innocent, nervous guy (Hank Harris); the party animal (Andrew Levitas) and the one who wants to be loved for his mind NOT his body (Matt Phillps as a drag queen). While getting there they make fun of the guy in the Devil costume. During the night he stalks them...and kills them one by one. Who is he and why is he doing this? Don't bother asking--the film doesn't tell you!

The film is beautifully shot (some VERY nice images here) and the murder scenes are very gory and well-done. Also the actors were hired for their looks and bodies--but they're really pretty good! Fergus is handsome and likable; Harris is a little TOO nerdy; Levitas is drop dead gorgeous with a GREAT body...but overdoes it a little; Phillips is excellent as the drag queen--he looks stunning as a woman AND a guy. Also they are joined by Bryan Kirkwood who's pretty bad. He's obviously straight and seems uncomfortable. But there's two BIG problems with the film--the script and dialogue.

The script is chockful of stupid moments--someone is killed on a crowded dance floor...and nobody notices; the killer magically appears everywhere his victims are; we never find out who he is or why he's doing this. One one hand I thought thought this might be a tribute to the stupid 80s slasher films which were ALSO full of stupid incidents. On the other hand I thought---is that something we should pay tribute to? And the dialogue is just dreadful--no gay man (or straight man) talks like these guys.

But, all in all, it was fun seeing a slasher film with gay men and showing off some nice partial nudity (no frontal but the guys are shirtless 90% of the time and there is a group butt shot). I'm giving this an 8 because the guys were just incredible and gave good performances...but I can't say I loved this.

Recommended for gay men and horror movie fans who have no problem with gay guys. There's also plenty of room for a sequel. Let's hope there is one--with a better plot and dialogue.


As a longtime slasher fan, I'm always looking forward to a new entry in one of my favorite sub-genres. When I first heard about this one, I was wary. Not because it was a gay slasher film, but because I was worried that the characters weren't going to be portrayed as real people, but rather caricatures of gay stereotypes. In order for a slasher film to succeed, you need to believe the victims... and thankfully, with Hellbent, I did.

What I got in this film was a really solid slasher flick that was really fun from beginning to end, with beautiful cinematography, plentiful gore, and a very fun locale. While the killer has no direct motive, it works within the context of the story and the movie never gets bogged down with pacing problems.

The characters, while an eclectic bunch, are all believable and keep the story moving along. While the occasional stereotype shows up, one gets the feeling that these are real people in a real situation, which is refreshing. The fact that the central characters are gay quits being a gimmick after the opening scene.

Judging from other reviews here, it appears as though a lot of people didn't care for this film, but I really did have a good time with it. Its funny, gory, and entertaining - which is all I ever ask of my slasher movies. People wanting high cinema should look somewhere else... but if you want high cinema, you probably aren't a slasher fan anyways.


I saw Hellbent at the San Francisco Frameline Film Festival. The Castro Theatre was packed with applauding, foot-stomping enthusiasts. And I was one of them. Hellbent is a great ride, even for people who don't ordinarily go for the horror/thriller genre. It isn't content to simply deliver our expectations of the genre. It surprises us as well. The characters (a group of young gay men celebrating Halloween in West Hollywood)are well-drawn and likable. It serves up plenty of scares, but it also has a sense of humor which keeps the tone light and fun. The guys look great, the soundtrack rocks, the pace never falters, and the climax--lame in so many horror/thrillers--is a real edge-of-your-seat thrill.


Do the readers of the posted comments for this film notice that the raves are coming from those who saw it at a gay and lesbian film festival somewhere? I don't know why but so many people who see films at festivals overrate them, as if the slightest gay reference in a film automatically makes it good. I missed it at last year's Outfest in LA, and heard that it was really good. I also wondered why it took over a year for this film to get released. Having finally gotten a chance to see it at a regular theater, I now know why. It was TERRIBLE! I can't understand why another Outfest entry that I saw--"The 25th Day" with hotties James Marsden and Scott Speedman went direct to video, and they bothered to release this trashy film. I am a fan of horror films. Hellbent is really the first "gay" slasher picture. Too bad it had to be done this badly--poor script, mediocre direction, laughable dialogue, paper-thin characters, an ending that can only be described as a complete let-down, and no insight whatsoever as to the killer. If you saw the poster to this film and the first make-out scene in the film, you saw the best part of the movie. Only the drag queen character was able to make any kind of lingering impression. The actor resisted the temptation to make his character campy, and so we have sympathy for him. Otherwise, don't waste your money. I am out 10 bucks and 90 minutes of my life that I'll never get back! I hope more talented gay filmmakers will try there hand at this genre, which has proved itself so profitably to str8 audiences. Openly gay filmmakers and writers such as Victor Salva ("Jeepers Creepers 1 & 2") and Kevin Williamson (the "Scream" movies and "I Know What You Did Last Summer" movies) have so far given us "eye candy" in the form of hunky guys, but their movies so far are engineered to mainstream str8 audiences. They have had their success commercially. It is time for them to "come out" and make a truly gay horror film like this one. What do they have to lose? Be yourselves, for Godsakes--don't pretend to be str8. Write what you know about and what you feel (that is, lust for guys, not for girls). If they ever do, maybe we will get the first GOOD gay slasher film! HellBent is certainly not that film.


HELLBENT is a tough movie to classify. Yes, it is about a serial killer on one Halloween night in West Hollywood, but it also seems to be a light-hearted takeoff on all the silly teenage massacre horror films. Is it parody or was it meant to be a thriller? No matter, because what we get is an entertaining, well-paced, witty-scripted, full of tension foray through the clubs and alleyways of the very colorful West Hollywood Halloween atmosphere.

Don't search for story motivation: there doesn't seem to be one. A devil-garbed body builder beheads boys, leaving the corpses sans heads to the horror of the community just as Halloween festivities are beginning. Our main characters are four friends who are out for a good time, the leader of whom is costumed as a cop and in reality is a wannabe policeman who failed the course due the loss of an eye. His fellow friends are zippy, tight, and fun loving and along the way many of them fall victim to the 'devil's scythe' (and yes, that is shown in grisly detail!). There is a lot of chase action in dark rooms and darker woods and alleys and the fear quotient is pretty high. The problem is the ending, which doesn't answer any plot motivational questions and unfortunately leaves the door open for future follow-up adventures (or is this merely part of the parody of the multitudinous versions of Freddy, I Know What You Did Last Summer, etc teenie flicks?).

The cast is attractive and seems to be enjoying themselves as actors. The lighting and costuming and musical scoring are on a par with the best production values of films of this genre. In the end it is fun to see a thriller played solely in the gay community without preachy comparisons or strife with the straight folk. It is entertaining for everyone.


Surely it couldn't be the first. But even if it is the "first gay slasher" it's just as bad as the last few slashers I saw for the breeder crowd. I hope the 2nd, 3rd and all subsequent gay slashers are better than this. I've seen better production values on an episode of "Degrassi Junior High." Not scary, suspenseful or even funny. And it seems that gay characters (even when created by gay men) can only be X-takin', circuit-party-frequentin', bathroom-stall-sex-havin' pretty boys. It's kinda tiresome. But hey - what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if you're gonna have one-dimensional characters in a movie like "I Know What You Did Last Summer," why not have them in this one?


I rented this movie last night with friends and at first we were looking for a really bad movie with half naked men in it....actually looking for a homo-erotic horror by David DeCouteau.....what we found was Hellbent.....A really good horror movie....I got scared....it wasn't too campy it wasn't over the top gay....though as in most horror movies the characters sometimes do things...well quite often do things that make you say "why are you parking there?"...or .."Don't go near him."...it was just a group of gay guys ( very attractive gay guys) being stalked and I thought it was great. I'd recommend it to any horror fan looking for a good slasher flick....the acting is decent and the effects are very well done.


HellBent (2004) C-85 min. D: Paul Etheredge-Ouzts. Dylan Fergus, Bryan Kirkwood, Hank Harris, Andrew Levitas, Matt Phillips, Miguel Caballero, Kent James, Samuel A. Levine. Etheredge-Ouzts, who I met at the Philadelphia International Gay & Lesbian Film Festival, directs the first gay slasher movie ever, a fun and scary film that has nothing (other than the gay angle) original about it, but also doesn't pretend to be original. A serial killer in West Hollywood develops a taste for hunky gay men and sets his focus on a group of gay kids attending a Halloween festival. Ouzts seems to have a grasp on the genre and it shows, as the film is gory, scary, and features characters the viewers actually care about and can identify with. The humor also is a major plus, as there are several laughs spread throughout the film. If this is any indication, then there will definitely be more gay slasher films (HELLBENT 2 anyone?). RATING: 8 out of 10.


A hunky slab of beef is running around on Halloween killing cute young men who're having too much fun, and he's keeping their heads as trophies in this fast-moving horror flick that was surprisingly good.

The lead character is a gay wanna-be-cop named Dylan who, despite his hunkiness, has a solid reason why he's not allowed to be a boy in blue (which I will not divulge here). He's got the needs for a surly hottie he sees outside a tattoo parlor and later during a Halloween party. But he and his friends are being stalked by said killer for not being nice to the dude in the park. And therein lies the suspense and horror.

Yeah, you pretty-much know who's gonna die by the end of act 1. Yeah, some of the acting is merely so-so. But happily, Dylan Fergus, Andrew Levitas, Matt Phillips and Hank Harris fill their roles nicely (you actually believe these guys are roomies and friends) and make you care about their fates. And Bryan Kirkwood's surly-boy still manages to draw you in, even when he's more than a little threatening. Good jobs, guys.

Paul Etheredge-Ouzts does a better job of writing the script -- the scene in the car en-route to the party was especially nice -- than he does directing. He's not bad, just not up to the level of everything else. And while the technical aspects are fine, the editing could have been tighter and the special effects a bit more special.

But honestly, considering the junk that comes out for the gay community -- trash that's little more than an excuse to get pretty boys nekkid and in bed -- this is a welcome antidote. I wish I'd seen it in a theater packed with a bunch of screaming queens, because it was joyous cheesy fun. Hey...maybe this Halloween...?


This is a low budget, slasher film set in West Hollywood on Halloween. Being low budget some of the acting isn't world class, but that really doesn't hurt the film because of the campy, sexy, spooky nature of the film.

There are some wonderful moments in the film, like when Eddie first sees Jake, and has trouble hitting on him because he's nervous, or when Joey gets the phone number of the guy he's interested in. On the flip side there's the scene where Eddie is handcuffed to the bed while the killer is lurking about, undetected, in his apartment. That was more suspenseful and more thrilling than "1408" and "Vacancy" combined.

In the end, like any slasher film, the killer survives, and I hope there's a sequel set in New York on Halloween. How cool would that be?


I just loved this film. Yes, it's silly and the plot and dialogue could be better, but it has the makings of a cult. I'm not a fan of slasher films, but I was intrigued by this because it's the first gay slasher film. Some of the photography was simply beautiful (the blood from the tattoo, the motorcycle ride, the bedroom scene). I've read criticism of Kirkwood's performance (Jake), that he seems uncomfortable, but he's playing a damaged, possibly broken hearted character, so his discomfort/awkwardness could be part of his performance. I think the scenes at the end, where he's vulnerable and clingy, are very well underplayed, poignant. The only criticism I have is that it's too short. At 85 minutes, there would have been plenty of time (at least 10 minutes) to give us a bit more story - I was dying to see Tobey (Matt Phillips) properly out of drag! I'd like to see a sequel, but I think if they were going to make one, they'd have made it by now... Or, six years later, the psycho killer could have escaped and is hellbent (hehe) on tracking down Jake and Eddie (who are still together and in love of course... or maybe they've split up (over some trivial misunderstanding) and the new danger brings them back together for a bitter reunion... but in the end they realise they still love each other... I could go on...) I want to see more films like this.


I had heard good reviews before finally seeing this movie and am already a fan of the horror genre.For a gay slasher film it was done tastefully.I like a movie like this that is more realistic instead of being b-rated and campy.I am glad the gay characters were more normal instead of showing all the negative stereotypes that a lot of TV shows and movies show.It's refreshing to see a regular gay movie about ordinary(but pretty)people in realistic circumstances.In some ways it's just eye candy since every character was cute and sexy,but no different then a lot of other movies.This movie has a good story,good actors,and nice effects with the right amount of suspense,gore and humor.It is very well directed,produced as well as acted.I hope a sequel is made to understand the motive to the killings and to see who is behind that demonic mask. The music was fantastic and I wish there was a soundtrack.I have never heard of most of the artists but like their music.I really like how it has a Halloween theme.The costumes were outrageous and the party blew me away and looked like a lot of fun.This is a nice alternative to watching Halloween on Halloween night(even though i'm a huge fan of J.Carpenter's film)because it gives you a choice between them.Of course I will watch them both personally.


Wow! What a fun ride! Just as good as any breeder teen slasher flick. Fun Halloween setting in West Hollywood gives the perfect opportunity for four hot guys to be beheaded at the hands of a 'horny' devil. The film adds a love story to the mix that miraculously never turns saccharine. The story (what there is) is skillfully doled out to provide maximum tension, so don't worry why someone working in a police department is not a uniformed cop, all will be revealed by film's end. Those looking for substance over style should look elsewhere, but if a homo roller-coaster ride to fright-land is what your after, this flick is it.


this film isn't going to change your life. it's fun and camp in a butch kinda was. these guys can act and they look good too.

the plot is simple and that is it's greatest flaw. there is almost a porn feel to it (or it could be that i've seen too much porn) and i'm getting confused.

I wouldn't sell this an seminal gay movie but it's good to see something which is like a mainstream movie in which instead of a girl in a bra running away from the killer you get to see a cute guy scream and run away like a girl, *smile*. I actually seem this with a room full of straight men (well the vast majority) and it got a round of applause.

keep 'em coming.......


After waiting a year for this film, I finally saw it in Hollywood today on the big screen. It exceeded my expectations. This is one of the best horror/slasher films to come around in years. Relentless, gory, and an edge of your seat ride. This is not a "B" grade film. It has an obviously decent budget, a great cast, and brilliantly written and directed by Paul Etheredge-Ouzts. It is billed as the fist gay slasher film. But do no expect exploitive sex scenes. Although there is plenty of sexy male skin on hand, this is a real horror film, with lots of shocks and screams. Filmed on location during West Hollywood's annual gay Halloween parade, this gives the film a freaky feeling of even though you are surrounded by lots of people, you are still very much alone when a crazed psychopath is on the loose!! The cast, including, Dylan Fergus, Bryan Kirkwood, the adorable Hank Harris and Matt Phillips are all very good and each have very good good characters. I don't want to give anything away, instead I want to stress this is a very impressive horror film. It is a great entry in the horror genre, and a huge step in the gay film genre. This movie will no doubt gain a huge cult status, and become a horror classic. The ending is nail biting and fantastic. Hellbent is a fantastic modern horror film, not to be missed!


This so called gay slasher horror film is non of the 3.

It is so darkly lit & with constant facial close-ups,you cannot tell what is happening.

SPOILER ALERT, as soon as I saw one guy in flamboyant Drag & a cute young guy, I felt that they would be victims,

It was also filmed in West Hollywood, It sure did not look like the West Hollywood I know so well.

I feel sorry for those that spent $ 11:00 or more on this in the theatres. I saw this on NETFLIX so my cost was very reasonable

* 1/2 out of 4 36 points out of 11 2 IMDb


When reviewing a film like HELLBENT, it's important to rate it within the realm of its genre. The Godfather this film isn't, but as a horror movie it's top-notch, except for some minor issues I had.

I disagree with earlier posters who see this as an AIDS allegory and question, "Haven't we gotten beyond that by now?" I couldn't disagree more. This film, to me, shows how "mainstream" gay culture has become. It follows the formula familiar to anyone who's seen Friday the 13th and any of the sequels or imitators that followed: have sex, get killed; remain chaste, survive (more or less). I view it as a weird compliment that gays can now be killed in a slasher film, as main characters in a "pointless" film designed to scare the bejeezus out of you (and succeeding admirably).

So it shouldn't really surprise anyone by who lives and who dies. What is surprising, however, is how the characters -- who should have been mere cardboard -- turn into semi-three-dimensional people. I was most impressed with the role of guy in drag. There was a real poignancy to some of his scenes; his need for validation through sex.

Speaking of sex, the sexuality is highly erotic but not barrier pushing. The sex in this movie was more like a daytime soap or an episode of the old MTV show "Undressed" than a more overt display that's so commonplace in straight movies (of any kind) and that was such a big deal in Brokeback Mountain. To put a positive spin on that, then, this is a gay movie straight people will watch easily. Attractive, Beverly Hills, 90210-type actors in an effective slasher flick. No gross-out deaths, as seems to be the trend nowadays, but more of an emphasis on the suspenseful, which I find much "scarier" and certainly smarter.

The one issue I have with the film is the lack of motivation for the killer. I was waiting for a motive. The bad guys ALWAYS have a motive. But I can see the genius in NOT giving him a motive: the filmmakers were damned if they did, whichever direction they'd chosen to go. Motive would mean determination of the killer's sexuality, and a straight killer would mean this movie was anti-gay and about gay bashing. A gay killer would indicate to many that gayness leads to dysfunction, self-hatred, etc. (see De Palma's Dressed to Kill). This whole controversy is avoided, smartly, but it gives the ending a lack of something for me: gravitas, maybe, I'm not sure. And the very final image (I won't spoil it here) is SO cliché it made me groan. But again, this speaks of the mainstreaming of gay culture: gotta leave room for a sequel!


Ignoring some of the awful reviews on here, I decided to buy this movie on DVD, and have just watched it.. quite frankly I can say I wasn't disappointed ! OK, so the plot wasn't amazing, and you knew pretty much who was gonna live and who was gonna die, but you know what, that didn't matter - a gay horror flick is just what the genre needed...

The direction was good, the actors not bad (although would have been nice to see Matt Philips (Toby) out of drag - damn he's hot), and I would LOVE to see a sequel... if they could make one for IKWYDLS, then they can do one for this...

Watch this movie !!!


Yeah, yeah, another slasher film with a killer killing people. It's great that the movie centers around mostly a gay cast and I did enjoy some of the twist and turns, some scares and gross outs, and the acting, but you would think that by today's standards, in the era of the 'smart' horror film, we would get an answer as to why the killer is killing and who is he. I've seen all the horror films where people kill just to kill and I'm bored of that. If a reason was stated why this guy was killing, I would have most likely told people to see this movie. I felt just like the guy at the beginning of the movie who was getting a you-know-what, when the film was just about to reach climax, it cut its own head off!!!


while i applaud the effort to make a "mainstream" horror film with a gay "edge", i have to honestly warn others of the absolute horribleness of this movie. the cast is compiled of D-list porn actors (no, really. it's true. check for yourself) with almost no known acting abilities other than getting my on their marginal good looks. there's even a part of the movie (i can't tell if this was an intentional joke or not) where they casually drop their age (22) but the actors are obviously about 30. if this movie had played up its camp value (ala Die! Mommy, Die!), this could have been a funny film. but since it takes itself seriously as a horror/slasher film, it just comes across as amateur. the video production is pretty bad too. i don't even think it is worth watching on video. for free. it's that bad. and i had really, really high hopes...


Take a mindless, murderous psycho, throw in copious amounts of beautiful men, put them all in the West Hollywood Halloween festival, and you've got "Hellbent" - truly a superb gay slasher flick! It was great watching a formula slasher flick where the homoerotic subtext was elevated to supertext, and seeing scantily-clad hunky men running for their life instead of buxom babes in bras.

The story starts out - as all slasher flicks do! - with a couple having sex in a car the night before Halloween, who then get killed by a mysterious, beefy psycho (because we all know that sex kills in slasher flicks). Enter our hero, Eddie, with a heart of gold and a weakness for rough trade, and his friends Joey, Chaz and Tobey, who are planning their night out at the West Hollywood Halloween festival.

Parking at the very spot where the two guys were killed the night before, they encounter the psycho on their way to the festival, and unwittingly make themselves his obsessive targets. We follow them (while the killer follows them as well) as Joey searches for his jock crush, Tobey explains to everyone he doesn't usually dress in drag, Chaz parties very hard, and Eddie tries to connect with Jake, the bad boy he wants to get to know better. Of course one by one the killer gets them, in various creative and bloody ways, but you have to stay right to the end to find out who survives - and who gets the boy! Don't go in expecting a backstory on the killer, or why he's out stalking gay men, or too much depth overall - it is, after all, just a quintessential, formulaic slasher flick, just with a queer twist. It's also fun (without being campy), the acting is good, the boys are hot, and it's a suspenseful and thrilling film that takes itself seriously as a real slasher film. See it when it comes to your town!


Hellbent Regency 2004 Color 85 minutes Gay-Horror Dylan Fergus, Bryan Kirkwood, Hank Harris, Andrew Levitas, Matt Phillips and John P. Petrelli star. Written and Directed by Paul Etheridge-Ouzts Rated R for graphic violence, gore, nudity, language and drug use Finally homo-horror rears it's cute little head from behind the genre divide. I was lucky enough to attend this film courtesy of tickets from Camp Blood. Upon entering the fully packed theater as loads of people couldn't get in that were eagerly awaiting the screening outside. It hit me, this is it and I'm so excited. Being that I am a huge horror fan and a gay man I have been eagerly awaiting this film for quite some time. A film that combines my lifestyle with the thrills I've become so accustomed to cherishing over the years. So as I sat down the films promotion manager came up and introduced the film. He said I'm so happy all of you could be here to see the movie, I hope all of you like it and if you do tell your friends. And if you don't just say it was challenging. The audience giggled along with me and my friends and the lights dimmed. We were first shown a trailer of another homo horror film hitting theaters soon Dante's Cove witch looked more like a skin flick to be honest. not that I'm complaining but it got me worrying a little I was hoping Hellbent would be something more than just pretty flesh on view. I can happily say that it was. After a silly beginning featuring two hot guys getting it on and getting murdered. It was off to meet our main characters. First up gorgeous pretty boy Eddie played by the Passions Dylan Fergus. He's the Jamie Lee Curtis of the film, the somewhat virginal victim. Throwing off sex and drugs in search of a bad boy hunk he saw at the local tattoo parlor. That bad boy hunk is Jake played by sexy as hell Bryan Kirkwood of The Forskaen a scruffy, tattooed, tough boy protecting a wounded heart. Than there are his friends Joey played by adorable Hank Harris of Pumpkin the naive twinkie cutie of the group swooning over a crush on a deliciously hot jock boy. Bisexual Chazz played by yummy poster boy Andrew Levitas of Psycho beach Party (Provolonie) your basic friendly but whorishly natured player. And finally last but not least there's the model Tobey whose dressed up as a drag queen for Halloween hoping someone will notice something about him besides his looks played by heartthrob Matt Phillips. But wait there's the villain shirtless, mostly in the dark with ripped six pack abs, a devils mask and love for decapitations and eye gouging played by the brutally handsome John P. Petrelli. Along they go on their escapade to the Halloween carnivale in West Hollywood. Hoping for fun and hot guys they end up being stalked and systematically slaughtered one by one by a pointless but amusing killer. And this film is just entertainment, it's fun. there's lots of eye candy, creatively brutal and gory death sequences and manages to generate a good amount of old fashioned suspense and laughs. It plays a lot like a Friday the 13th sequel with an all male cast. And all though this is a film about gay men it's not a gay film. This is a horror film cut and dry and any real horror fan won't have a problem admitting to it. It's obvious that it was done on a low budget, but despite the poor film quality the film is smart and energetic fully delivering on it's promises as a brutal horror film that features gay characters. Hopefully the film will make some sort of impact, from the audience reaction I think it has quite a future to look forward to. A definite big time cult movie. It has hot boys, gruseome deaths and jolts galore. Let in the fun and go find Hellbent. A traditional tthrowback to the heart of the genre a film that generates goose bumps, laughs, sex appeal and good old fashioned slasher/horror! ****(out five) Richard Cavellero Metuchen,NJ


I hope this is widely released pretty soon. It should be effective enough to wipe out the headache and the sour taste a lot of people will have, after the 'twist' ending offered by HIGH (HAUTE) TENSION. Yeah, it's low-budget, the stars are practically unknowns, and with the heroes (and very likely the killer) of this piece all being gay, it's a miracle that HELLBENT even exists at all! But for what will more than likely be the very first slasher film with an all-gay cast of characters to hit the mainstream, it's pretty freakin' GREAT!

Halloween in West Hollywood. For color and camp, debauchery and decadence of all kinds, this is a party probably only rivaled by Mardi Gras in New Orleans. Against this unique backdrop, HELLBENT places the story of four gay friends, ready to party and play the night away. Unfortunately for several of them, this night of celebration is about to be cut short. LITERALLY.

Seems there's a serial killer on the loose, whose been looking for head at one of the nearby gay lover's lanes. And he's been finding a pretty good collection, one at a time, stuffing them into his trusty duffel bag after a quick removal with a wicked-looking sickle.

Prior to partying, the four friends went to the site of the latest murder just for kicks, running into a tall, muscular guy in a devil's costume, complete with horns. Thinking he's just another cute but creepy party-goer, they taunt and tease him, hoping to leave him panting for more. Unfortunately for them, he was...and now he's after them, determined to give them all his undivided attention...one victim at a time.

The death scenes in HELLBENT are just as stunning as the ones in HAUTE TENSION, though it leavens the horror with enough campy humor to put it in the 'typical slasher film' category, lacking TENSION'S brute-strength and pitch-black tone. Paul Etheredge-Ouzts definitely knows his horror just as well as TENSION'S creators, but the more positive take he puts on the 'gay' angle will make it more accessible to gay and straight audiences alike.

And wait till you get a load of HELLBENT'S inventive and suspenseful "trick" ending. It's a deliciously nasty surprise, and just one of the many pleasurable jolts this has to offer.

Can't wait to see what this director will do with "name" actors and a bigger budget...


Only due to the fact that I love slasher/serial kill movies, did I rate this as high as 3.

I skipped past the opening credits. The next scene opens in a cop station. In the ensuing seconds, it shows the cop browsing data on various wanted suspects. I believe the intent was that we would assume he was continuously going forward through the database. If you slo-mo and pause, you'll note the details in several suspects' files, and you'll note one that describes a sex crime. These details are displayed several times, and although the details are the same, the suspect's picture is different LOL


**WARNING: SPOILERS ABOUND!**

I had a very strange reaction while watching 'Hellbent' last night: I was kind of excited to see a horror movie that was made by an openly gay director, and had played to some fanfare on the festival circuit. But that excitement deflated faster than the Hindenburg when I realized 'Hellbent' was no better than the average flick that arrives direct to the shelves of Blockbuster with alarming frequency. 'Hellbent' is not good horror and it is not good Queer Cinema (although I'm the first to argue that there is very little quality Queer Cinema). To make matters worse, the movie does absolutely nothing to dispel the myth that gay men are bed-hopping, pill-popping alcoholics who suffer from a deadly combination of low self-esteem, shame and guilt.

Plot: Four gay friends attend the Carnival in West Hollywood on Halloween night. One of them, a would-be cop who lost an eye in an accident (how that tidbit plays in at the end is both perfunctory and a distraction), plays the "straight" role, while the others comprise the obligatory group of slaughter fodder: the stud, who needs to lay everything with two legs and a heartbeat; the shy kid who just wants to get the phone number from that one guy; and the model who's so tired of being judged by his looks that he decides to go out for the night in drag just to prove to everyone that he's not as shallow as he seems. They're pursued through the streets by a mad-dog killer dressed as a--well, I don't know exactly what he's dressed like, some kind of devil, which could carry its own social message about the ills of illicit drug use and sex. They die, and that's pretty much it. There's also an unnecessary subplot that involves a budding connection between the one-eyed nice guy and a "biker with a heart of gold," and writer-director Paul Etheredge-Ouzts does all he can to mine sympathy for the shy guy and the model before he kills them off.

In reality, Ouzts has done nothing socially conscious, or even new by replacing a bevy of horny heterosexual teens with a bevy of horny twenty-something 'mos and putting them in the same old predictable situation where they can be picked off, one by one, by a masked killer. Haven't we seen this all before--and done far better? Ouzts' digital camera work is stilted and lazy, his cinematography dark and dank in all the wrong places. He uses unnecessary and extreme close-ups ad nauseum; most of the time they're so improperly framed that the top of the actors' heads are cut off. And Ouzts commits the cardinal sin of casting a leading man so bland that he's upstaged by his supporting cast. There's some nice work Bryan Kirkwood as the edgy biker, and Hank Harris as the self-conscious Joey, who meets a too-early end. But even they aren't enough to conceal the fact that this really isn't a very good film. (And please, spare me the gaggle of wrong-sighted support for the film simply because it was made by a gay man and involves gay characters. Social exposure, on its own and by its mere existence, doesn't automatically make for good cinema.) So what does this all add up to? Not much. There's very little suspense, and the decision Ouzts makes regarding the killer's identity borders on criminal, considering he's given us nothing to care about up to that point. Dodging a pay-off is all well and good so long as there's justification in the build-up.