Avis des utilisateurs

Ted Prior was a Playgirl Playmate trying to get into acting, his brother David uhm, just owned a camera I guess, and so a fruitful collaboration started that has been going on for more than thirty years now. Their absolute masterpiece is probably 1987's "Deadly Prey", a complete and utter rip-off to "Rambo: First Blood" that is just irresistibly entertaining in all its wrongness. That one I can really recommend, but "Sledgehammer" is a whole other story. This thing is one of the most boring slasher films I have ever seen, it's clear the dynamic duo still had lots to learn when they made this. For example, David Prior hadn't figured out yet how to turn off the slo-mo effect on his camcorder. He uses slo-mo for the most random things. Some slo-mo in the grand finale, makes sense. Every single death scene in slow-motion, that's pushing it but fair enough. But why would you use it when the scene is just people walking around in a garden or sitting on a couch doing nothing? Is this young David Prior's creative force kicking in and not having a clue what it's doing? Not that the movie would be any good at a normal speed, but at least it would be lots shorter. Occasionally there is some almost-suspense (the clichéd slasher scene where one character tells the killer's legend isn't bad), the opening scene is also quite atmospheric, but as a whole "Sledgehammer" just doesn't bring much to the table to keep you entertained. It also doesn't help that you'll constantly have to yell "just get out of the house!" at the screen, my throat is still sore from yesterday. If this led the Priors on the road to "Deadly Prey" I appreciate it exists, but that's the nicest thing I can say about it.

The title appears, barely legible, in blocks, on screen for nineteen slow seconds, before being smashed with the title object. We, the audience, are then seemingly beaten over the head with some of the poorest picture quality imaginable, even for shot-on-video flick, during the opening title sequence, while an imitation of the Phantasm theme is played.

Obnoxious, amateur actors/ amateur porn stars gather in a farmhouse where, ten hyperbolic years earlier ( because nine years is never enough time, but eleven years is always too much time ) a double murder was committed. At one point, the filmmakers seemingly forgot they were doing a slasher film, and meander into a food fight, which lasts for nearly eight minutes, before setting up a seance, to contact the spirit of the killer from a decade earlier. " Some of you may have already heard what I'm about to tell you, " Mr. Polo Shirt informs us. We all have, because at this point, the filmmakers pad out the run time with a lengthy expositional flashback to the first scene from this very movie, in a Friday the 13th part 2- inspired bit, telling the audience what we already know. Two of these dip****s are later killed with a sledgehammer, which prompts another dip**** to ask​, " Any clues? " Perhaps the sledgehammer, and the dead bodies themselves, which they move, because they're all drunken morons? They remain in murder house overnight, basically waiting to be killed. The ghost/ killer/ whatever he is materialises/ crawls out of the woodwork, to off these nitwits one by one, and they kind of, sort of, fight for their lives.

The cast:

Chuck, seemingly cast for his muscular physique, and willingness to wear a polo shirt.

Joni: completely forgettable.

John: This guy just sucked.

Mary: kind of pretty, but has the same awful 80s perm as Joni.

Jimmy: looks likes he's killing time until the next Hall and Oates concert, or until he and Mary and Joni go have their hair permed at the same place.

Carol: probably the best of an admittedly lousy cast, but with the same perm hairdo as the rest of them.

Joey : I don't even remember this guy, but I'm sure he sucked.

Lover: sucked.

Mother: tolerable, but she and Jimmy and Mary and Joni look like they all have the same hairstylist, who only knows​how to do that same perm.

The boy: was a lame villain.

Killer: was he the killer? I thought it was the boy?

The driver: why was he even here?

But for all the grief and aggravation, I must admit I watched this film twice this month, before writing this review. It has some occasionally inspired camera-work, especially during the climax, among static shots of hallways. The music score is eerily effective, it reminded me a bit of German industrial band Einsturzende Neubauten, particularly their record, Zeichnungen des Patienten O. T. Plus, the added terror of a killer stalking his victims in their own home is a terrifying thought in and of itself. Gore fans should find enough in the ending to make it worthwhile, too.

I'm not saying this is * good *, but there are worse movies out there, like Blood Massacre, for example. Without the opening and closing credits, this is only 74 minutes long. Without the use of slow motion, it might only be about 20 minutes long.

This is a mediocre horror movie. It's very cheap, has acceptable (Sandy Brooke, Ted Prior, Linda McGill) to downright bad (George Eastman, Steven Wright, Tim Aguilar) acting, standard direction, poor screenplay, and okay photography.

It is about a woman and her lover who is killed by her young son(looks about seven years old, kinda young to be insane). Ten years later a group of vacationing teens (they look like their in their 30's, serious!) show up looking to have a weekend full of sex, booze, and fun. Their fun turns to sheer terror as their weekend is interrupted by the raving maniac's spirit.

It was directed by David Prior (KILLER WORKOUT, LOST PLATOON, MARDI GRAS FOR THE DEVIL) who does an okay job with the camera (for being a video movie) and creates a real film feel but when the action starts, he results to too many slo mo shots. Sandy Brooke is the most capable actress in this film, she gives real feeling to her character. Too bad she was in this movie.

It was shot on video before "BLOOD CULT" though and is wwwaaayyy better than W.A.V.E. Exploitation/Horror videos (At least SORORITY SLAUGHTER 1 & 2). Since IMD doesn't have a cast list I will supply one.

CAST

JONIE....LINDA MCGILL

CHUCK....TED PRIOR

JOHN.....JOHN EASTMAN

MARY.....JANINE SCHEER

JIMMY....TIM AGUILAR

CAROL....SANDY BROOKE

JOEY.....STEPHEN WRIGHT

LOVER....MICHAEL SHANAHAN

MOTHER...MARY MENDEZ

THE BOY (young)....JUSTIN GREER

THE BOY (older/spirit)....DOUG MATLEY

THE DRIVER....RAY LAWRENCE

All in all an entertaining if not throughly enjoyable genre piece stricken by poverty ($40,000 U.S. dollars).

5/10 (based on shot on video horror features)

First of all, I want to make clear this caveat- it takes a lot of effort to conceive of, write, and execute a film, not to mention actually get it into video stores in the earliest days of VHS. This alone is worthy of respect.

With that out of the way, as a representative of the art form, this is easily one of the worst movies ever made, from every conceivable standpoint. The characters are not even one-dimensional, what can generously be called a plot has galaxy-sized holes in it, the killer has powers which are hilariously inconsistent scene-to-scene, some shots linger well past the point of absurdity, scenes are needlessly drawn out and some, inexplicably, are in slow motion, with several ending in weird freeze-frames, and a key moment where the killer's motivation is revealed (I think) is so muffled that it is indecipherable.

This is a very hard movie to get through, and it clocks in at well under 90 minutes.

Watch this with a group of friends in the style one would watch The Room or Rocky Horror, the latter of which looks like Citizen Kane in comparison.

This movie is an anomaly to me. It has some good gore but by god are some scenes slow as all hell. There's one scene in which a character is opening a door and it takes well over 10 seconds to reach and turn the doorknob. It would be another fun and charming sov movie put out by Intervision if it weren't for the dragging of scenes and cringy overacting.

For years I've tried to watch every 80s slasher movie and rank them in hopes of finding a hidden gem.... This was not one of them. I knew going into it that it was going to be bad but this was the second lowest one I've ranked out of 100s. The slow motion shots really really tested my patience. I think they were added into the movie just to stretch it as close as possible to 90 minutes. Movie consists of chases scenes up the same flight of stairs, down the same hallway, and into the same bedroom over and over and over.. outside of the one topless part, and a slow motion slap, there were no redeeming qualities.

My review was written in January 1986 after watching a World Video Pictures video cassette.

"Sledge Hammer" is a substandard example of the new breed of horror features shot with videotape cameras (such as "Copperhead" and "Blood Cult") rather than on film. It's strictly a home video shelf item.

Made in 1984, feature included explicit gore and some nudity but a very weak storyline. Cornball premise has a battered young boy killing his mom and her adulterous lover with a sledge hammer. Ten years later, he's grown up and killing young people staying for a weekend at the same house.

With the killer appearing and disappearing at will, plus a seance at the house, there is a vague element of the supernatural in this picture, but nothing of interest happens between murders. Chatty dialog seems improvised and overall production qualities seem closer to the videotaped porn genre than to a horror pic. Acting is perfunctory and pacing is quite sluggish.

This all sounds so comfortingly familiar. A young boy (Justin Greer) is locked in a closet so his mom (Mary Mendez) - obviously no candidate for mother of the year - can get it on, in peace, with her lover (Michael Shanahan). Very shortly afterwards, the mom and the lover get it with the title weapon. Fast forward ten years later, and one of the most obnoxious groups of young adults that you'll ever see makes it to the very same house for some hard partying. After we're made to watch a great deal of their tomfoolery, our psycho killer makes their appearance, once again putting a sledgehammer to good use.

An early credit for "Deadly Prey" director David A. Prior, this stars Davids' hunky brother Ted in the role of Chuck, one of these merry morons. The acting from Ted and all others concerned is exactly as amateurish as one would expect it to be, but that doesn't mean it isn't entertaining. John Eastman hams it up the most. Overall, "Sledgehammer" is nothing special, and it may not appeal to slasher fanatics across the board because one, there's no nudity, and two, it's really not that gory until the big finish. All of that said, it's reasonably enjoyable in typical bad movie fashion.

The main problem is that David A. Prior goes out of his way to pad the running time. "Sledgehammer" only runs about 85 minutes, but several minutes easily could have been cut out without affecting the movie. Still, this may add to the appeal for some in the audience. The inane antics of our intended victims go on for quite a long time, so if one is not amused by these characters right off the bat, just imagine having to put up with them for over 40 minutes or so.

The gore might not be that much, but it's fun in a predictably tacky way.

"Blood Cult" may get erroneously credited as the first shot on video regional horror flick, but this one predates it by a few years.

Six out of 10.

After I finished viewing this (and I did, incredibly), something happened that normally doesn't occur after I finish watching bad slasher movies: I began to think. Not so much about the movie itself--it's wretched badness is self-evident--but why it was made, and who it was being marketed to. Anyone who loves slashers or studies their rise and fall knows that the majority of these films exist because of simple economics: slashers made money. Great cost-to-profit ratios and insatiable demand made these movies fool-proof investment ventures. I don't have any hard figures, but I would venture most of these efforts turned a profit, or at least made back their expenses plus. Of course, this assembly-line approach to movie making didn't always produce cinematic masterpieces, and it's a wonder that so many slashers are as solid (or watchable) as they are. Which brings us to this movie. What makes SLEDGEHAMMER unique is not the film itself, it's concept, script, or cinematography, but it's intended audience. The biggest question starts with the movie's medium: video tape. Why would David Prior choose this? Few, if any, conventional movie theaters in the early 80s had the technology to project video tape. Was he trying to market the movie to cable TV? The quality of most cable programming from this time was bad, but not THAT bad. The straight to video market? That wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye at this point. Two possibilities come to mind: Prior made this cheaply and quickly as a marketing tool, something to show to potential investors/producers that he could make a (barely) passable feature film, or he simply made it to show to himself that he could make a movie. No other logical reasons come to mind. Prior's trying to prove his mettle as a movie maker couldn't be too far from the truth, because the movie itself has little to recommend it. A paper-thin narrative, one-dimensional characters, terrible acting and at times incoherent line readings, clumsy editing, copious padding, and an overall cheap look make this one of the worst slashers in a long, coagulated smear of bad slashers. The script must have only been 10-15 pages long, because most of the scenes seems improvised: food fights, actors roaming around outbuildings and rummaging through piles of junk, slow-mo walks across yards. One thing of note: the killer seems to be some supernatural entity, as evidenced by his disappearing and reappearing in the hallways of Prior's apartment (the main shooting locale), which means this killer beat Freddy Kruger to the punch by a few years. And Prior did improve, working mostly in the B-grade action movie genre, but also making a better slasher later (KILLER WORKOUT). It isn't a milestone, but it did offer a unique concept and better overall execution. And it was even shot on film.

This is a homemade 80's slasher film that appears to have cost about 14 bucks to make and looks like it was shot on a VHS camcorder (I'm not kidding). It was shown at a theater in L.A. recently as part of a homemade horror video festival and I still can't get it out of my mind. The film begins with an abused child being locked in a closet while his mother has a drunken fling with a character referred to in the credits as the "Lover". Before the affair can commence a giant masked maniac armed with a sledgehammer beats them to a bloody pulp. A title card (old ass 80's camcorder text) tells us it's 10 years later and we are introduced to seven potential victims as they go for a weekend retreat in the home of the previous murders where they are systematically stalked and killed by the same sledge wielding madman. OK, I know it all sounds very derivative and there are much better, more professional cheap ass slashers out there, but this movie is "special" in a lot of ways. First off, the low production value and it's cheap, home video quality cinematography actually enhance the film a lot. That combined with a simple, yet effective, bass heavy synthesizer score, an amateur cast made up of muscle bound jocks and big hair bimbos, and a freakishly tall killer who wears a clear plastic mask and is genuinely creepy looking make this movie transcend into a weird kinda art piece. It's like if Pinter made a slasher movie at a friends house one weekend for beer money on his home video camera. There is also an unexplained paranormal bit where the killer can physically change back into the small child from the beginning so I assume the kid is the killer and he's a shape shifter. Huh!? This effect is handled with an old fashioned dissolve. There is a completely inappropriate food fight that is extended for so long it becomes almost disturbing on a sociological level. The killer is SO big he barely clears the hallway's ceiling as he chases a victim and he holds his sledgehammer in one hand the way most normal people hold a regular hammer. Freaky. This whole films visual style is unnerving and escalates it into something much more than what was probably intended. David Lynch meets The Slumber Party Massacre. If you can get a bootleg dub somewhere, get high and drunk with as many friends you can find and toss it on the old VCR. The 80's never seemed stranger.

Remember in 'Friday the 13th' how Jason Vorhees's mom hated those camp counselors who didn't save her son from drowning so she lost her mind and went kill crazy? Ok well 'Sledgehammer' pulls a switcharoo. A crap mom locks her young son in a closet so she can sex her lover. Yes really. Yes he's only credited as "Lover". Yes both are killed for it. Now ten years later a bunch of young folks hit up this house for a vacation and he's all grown up waiting to bludgeon them to death.

Beyond the stale rip-off notes wafting thru your nose, I can tell you it's a shot on video extremely low budget nightmare ... but not in a good way. Director slash writer David A. Prior's very first foray into badness stretches out scenes like it's an art form here. Moments with no payoff are common. Dialog that sounds like it was made up on the spot. A supernatural element for the killer that comes and goes randomly.

A huge food fight. A guy actually resists having sex with an overly willing female. Taking the sledgehammer to the head done so hokey that it's funny. Padding the runtime means you see this twice. Painful dialog. Dumb hero (Ted Prior) who I might add spends at least 50% of the flick topless to showoff his ripped physique.

Never thought highly of any David A. Prior films, but 'Sledgehammer' made a few seem competent in comparison. I won't give him credit, say he got better with time, but bigger budgets and known faces in the cast slumming it for a paycheck certainly help. I thoroughly disliked my time with this flick.

Sledgehammer (1983)

1/2 (out of 4)

A young boy is being abused by his mother so he brutally kills her and her boyfriend with (you guessed it) a sledgehammer. Ten years later a group of adults show up at the same house and soon start to get picked off.

Director David A. Prior's SLEDGEHAMMER deserves some credit for being the first shot on video slasher film but sadly there really isn't too many good things to say about it. I guess you can give the film credit for being the first of something but sadly the entire film is just one giant mess of a picture with very little going for it. As you'd expect, there are countless technical issues, the performances are horrid and there's one thing that makes the film almost painfully unbearable to sit through.

What is that? The film clocks in at 84-minutes and the reason it runs that long is that so much of it was shot in slow motion. This here is what really kills anything decent in the film because scenes just drag on for no reason what-so-ever. I mean, I understand using slow motion at times but when there's this much of it you just want to claw your eyes out. Even worse is that a lot of scenes drag on for no reason at all. For an example, the opening shot of the house. In most movies it would last a second or two but here it must drag on for thirty seconds and for no reason!

As I said, that there makes SLEDGEHAMMER impossible to enjoy and it's rather painful to have to sit through. I will say that the death scenes were creative enough for such a low-budget movie and there was one creative shot through the killer's eyes. Sadly that's about all this film has going for it but you have to give credit to Prior for making his own film and this helped give a rather long career off the ground.

I'm going to be honest, this might be one of the worst slashers i've ever seen, but at least it's entertaining. Let's list off the bad things about this film: The acting, the ridiculous plot, the dialogue, the special effects, the camera work. So what is there to like about this film? Well, it's probably pretty fun to make fun of with your friends. 80s slashers are known for being cheesy but this truly goes above and beyond. The parts that are supposed to be funny aren't funny, the serious parts are laughable, the acting is cringey, the special effects are truly horrendous, and the editing. THE EDITING. There are far too many slow motion parts that i'm assuming are supposed to be emotional but they aren't. And they go on. And on... and on.... the slow motion segues literally last for 1-2 minutes at a time, it is nind boggling. In summary I would recommend watching this movie only if you are drunk at a party and want something truly awful to laugh at.

With any slasher movie, you have to understand that it was never intended as the next "Citizen Kane". But even with that in mind, "Sledgehammer" - whose title basically explains the entire plot, if you can call it a plot - is truly the bottom of the barrel. For starters, it's obviously shot with a video camera, and probably a hand-held one. But even worse, the movie contains long stretches where NOTHING happens. They put up $40,000 for THIS?!

Look, don't make me waste your time trying to explain how awful this movie is. It's not even entertaining. Just avoid this grade-Z atrocity at all costs.

"Sledgehammer" is another one of those forgotten 80's slashers and yes this one isn't less cheesy than the others and okay it's not perfect or great but what I found is that this movie was quite fun and has heart, which is very much rare these days.

The beginning kept me interested where we have a small boy cruelly locked in a cupboard by his mother so she can carry on with her lover and then things get out of hand and the boy finds a sledgehammer and dispatches his mother and her lover. This yes was predictable but really set the tone for this movie and what's to come. Then fast forward 10 years and we get a group of 30 year old teenagers partying at that same house and well you know what's gonna happen next.

Sledgehammer doesn't rank as one of the finest slasher movies from this period there are quite a lot of flaws, but despite that this movie is a lot of fun, the killer is very menacing and creepy and the kills are quite effective despite lacklustre effects. The setting itself was rather dull and tame, too much white and made this movie look dull and this movie holds the distinction for being the first shot on video slasher and it shows, like the shaky camera work and the supernatural angle just didn't work for me and the slow motion scenes were pretty annoying and overused.

But despite these flaws "Sledgehammer" does deliver entertainment in some departments, the acting was pretty bad but I've seen a lot worse, they were still quite likable and the party scenes were quite fun and when the killer shows up ready to dispatch the cast, these scenes are quite tense as the killer does seem quite impossible to get away from as he's literally everywhere which was a definite highlight.

All in all Sledgehammers is by no means memorable or a cult classic, but a competent effort dripped in pure cheese and definitely a guilty pleasure.

"Sledgehammer" is a SOV slasher flick which tells the story about the slowest serial killer in the history of hack'em up genre.The killer uses sledgehammer to murder his victims.He is plagued by traumatic past because he was locked away by his mother during his obviously unhappy childhood."Sledgehammer" oozes machismo.It stars Ted Prior of "Deadly Prey" fame as one of the main characters and is filled with a lot of annoying slow-motion scenes.The pace of "Sledgehammer" is decent and there is some cheap gore.The location sets are laughable:the action takes place inside this barren house.Upretentious in its cheese "Sledgehammer" by David A.Prior is worth checking out for slasher completists.6 sledgehammers out of 10.

Sledge Hammer (1983) is a movie I recently watched on Shudder. The storyline follows a young man who killed his family with a hammer. Years later some teenagers stay at the house of the murders and try to conjure the spirits of the house. It quickly becomes apparent they conjured more than just spirits to return to the house...

This movie is directed by David A. Prior (Deadliest Prey) and stars Ted Prior (Deadliest Prey), Sandy Brooke (Star Slammer), Linda McGill (Wicked World) and John Eastman (Dollman).

This movie is the definition of low budget horror. The cinematography and acting is poor and the background sound effects are hilarious. The use of shadows were fun and there are some good corpses in this. There are 1 or 2 worthwhile kill scenes, but most of the kills require you to use your imagination based on the shadow on the wall. There is a legendary slap scene in this that's an absolute must see and the teenagers are annoying enough you find yourself rooting for the killer.

This is an uneven addition to the horror genre that's a must see for horror enthusiasts but just okay overall. I would score this a 4.5/10 and recommend seeing it once.

"Sledgehammer" its an SOV slasher, its the infamous directorial debut of director David A. Prior and what a film to start with. When it comes to SOV horror "Sledgehammer" its probably among the most entertaining ones or at least the ones that have the most redeeming qualities, but as a legit horror movie it doesn't work at all.

I like just how surreal it is, it doesn't try to ground itself in reality, instead, it creates its own mood and atmosphere, something I really enjoy in horror films, however, its also a severely flawed movie even by SOV standards, mainly because of the obnoxious main characters, all of them are unlikable idiots, they sink the movie really low and make it almost unwatchable.

It started pretty decent but never became any more interesting, its predictable, cheesy, slow and dull but the tone its perfect for SOV horror. This is a really weird movie, there is fine line between genius and craziness, unfortunately, I believe this is the later.

I rented the movie Billy Jack, but was pleasantly surprised to find that the woman at the counter had mistakenly given me a movie entitled SledgeHammer. Rather than correcting her, I gave it a try, and boy o' boy, did I make the right call! This movie had everything and much more! Okay, maybe not MUCH more, but this was indeed the singlemost innovative horror of the 80's, a true underground hit. The beautiful outside photography and still close-ups of key symbols throughout the entire movie would make this an art house hit, but the dynamic cast and contemporary dialogue creates a demand from the mainstream. The scenes where the band of friends sit for breakfast allows the viewer to connect with cast, almost as if they were sitting next to them and not watching.

One of the characters was so awesome that I based a Dungeons and Dragon character on them! My friends and I also based an ENTIRE CAMPAIGN ON THIS MOVIE called: "The Fantastical Sledgehammer Wars of 1997"!!!