Una nueva masacre en Texas

I chose this movie on a damp bank holiday weekend when funds were low and there was nothing on TV. The video shop had very few options, and to cut a long story short - I've had a thing for Michael Madson ever since Thelma and Louise, and even Kill Bill 2 (at a push).

Not only was he barely in it, he looked fat!!! "Never mind," I thought, "this is meant to be really scary and should be good," snuggling up to my boyfriend and turning the lights down low.

By the end of the film, my boyfriend was barely speaking to me, half furious, half bemused he stuttered, "I can't believe you brought that DVD in to our house".

This really, really is an awful film, the writing is so bad the "scary" bits are hilarious, so poorly acted that the "moving" bits are, again, hilarious. The characters are far-fetched and the plot is ridiculous.

The Dennis Hopper good cop/bad cop thread is predictable and boring, the bad characters are like pantomime villains (a woman with five warts on her face?!), the good characters are so dull, boring and naive for getting themselves in to the situation they are in leaves you tempted to track them down and torture them yourself... the rape scene was the only part of the film I found difficult to watch - and that is merely because rape in itself is a disgusting act that makes most people uneasy, and not that I was moved by the crude/ludicrous representation of such abuse by lame acting and the vision of ol' five warts lingering in the door way licking her lips... it was borderline insulting.

At the end I didn't care what happened, I just really didn't care. Incidentally, I also chose March of the Penguins on the same trip to the video shop.... How an unsuspecting an unpaid penguin can give off more screen presence and charisma is beyond me.

I really looked forward to watching this film, the premise seemed good, and the subject matter sure to hold my interest. The first thing that struck me as slightly off was the narration at the start of the film, it seemed a cheap way to fill in back-story. I was prepared to go with this however, as surely C.Thomas Howell and Dennis Hopper would redeem such little faults. Then the clunkiest dialogue I have ever heard assaulted my ears. It seemed like it was written by students for a school play, trust me, no-one ever spoke like these characters, I actually giggled a few times. The actors also seemed to have been encouraged to over-act heavily, which did not gel with previous performances I have seen of theirs. I was waiting for some real action to develop (after what felt like an eternity), when the movie just fizzled out. Jason Connerys and Dennis Hoppers characters were entirely incidental to the whole thing, which was a waste. It felt like the film had been made, decided that it was too long, then heavily edited to death. It was a real shame, as it could have been a really excellent movie in the right hands.

A lot of recognizable faces and some you think you might recognize but they just look like well known people. The movie is fine it's not scary has absolutely no tension other than missing a meal and for the most part has all but two main characters who you could say are human garbage and deserve their fate. While watching this develop I immediately connected this with a true story which though I didn't know it was the reason others picked it to watch it. Other than two people once lived on a farm this has almost no other parts that line up. It wasn't a widespread conspiracy no one was sold as human food and no one was tortured. It was a scheme to buy livestock with bad checks and re-sell the livestock for profit and the people who did this did it for 30 years and didn't kill anyone. When they were caught and the man was put in prison he was barred from all livestock auctions upon his release and that's when he started to employ transients to pose as buyers and for another ten years he just sent them on there way after the purchase. When he was released one last time he picked up transients and after the purchase he shot them once in the back of the head. Other than who is in it I'm sure I'll immediately forget this as most everyone else will. Other than C Thomas Howell the other people are basically cameos with Michael Madsen on screen for about five uncomfortable minutes. And I'm positive he was messed up on goof balls or whatever and has no clue he was in this.

this is not a good film to watch if you have ever seen any other 'theres strange related people living out their on the ranch' films. it offers nothing new and just plods along between shots of various transients getting tortured to 'look here i am eating some strange sort of jerky' shots....oh i wonder what that could be. well at least the pigs always get fed, which is probably why they do some of the best acting in the film and you learn never to eat bacon with a tattoo on it. but apart from that unless you live on a ranch,look like your strange relatives, are short on food and need some good evening 'party game' tips it might be better to give this film a miss.

The first thing you'll immediately notice about "Hoboken Hollow" (or at least I did) is the very, very extended cast list. The opening credits just don't stop introducing new names - among them a couple of very familiar ones like Dennis Hopper and Michael Madsen - and you promptly realize what this movie will lack are one or two actual leading characters. "Hoboken Hollow" is based on true events that probably did involve a lot of people, but perhaps writer/director Glen Stephens should have just focused on the kidnapping and torturing of hitch-hikers and homeless people instead of also wanting to narrate a dozen of redundant sub plots. The tale of the so-called "Texas Slave Ranch" basically revolved on a family of deranged hicks forcing random travelers to labor on their ranch, but the screenplay finds it absolutely necessary to throw in story lines about real-estate issues, soldiers with post-Iraq traumas and demented family relations. It also never feels as if the movie is inspired by true events. It's your average modern "torture-porn" flick with a lot of disgusting scenery and villains with terrible dental hygiene, but there never is any atmosphere of suspense or genuine morbidity to detect. And, now that we're being completely blunt and honest, this film will probably not even satisfy the real gorehounds and sick puppies among us. There's a fair share of carnage and repulsiveness on display, but the sickness-factor never approaches that of other "Torture Porn" flicks like, say, "Hostel", "Saw" or "Wolf Creek". The rape sequence is quite unpleasant to behold (as rape sequences always are), but the actual torture footage is limited to shots of the victims getting poked with an electric shock device and getting dragged behind a car. Glen Stephens may perhaps be a little over-ambitious, but – especially during a handful of isolated moments - his directing skills definitely show a lot of potential and he most certainly has a talented eye for appropriate casting. The aforementioned "bigger" stars Dennis Hopper and Michael Madsen only appear in small roles, but some of the other villains are aptly cast like C. Thomas Howell as the nastily grinning Clayton and Mark Holton (who played the titular role in "Gacy") as the slightly mentally unstable Weldon. Other remarkable B-movie names in the cast include Lin Shaye ("2000 Maniacs"), Robert Carradine, Dedee Pfeiffer and Randy Spelling. "Hoboken Hollow" is an overall weak and unsatisfying movie, but it's not entirely without interest for tolerant horror fanatics.