Hatfields and McCoys: Bad Blood

In this who's who of actors who haven't worked in years, there's virtually nothing here worth the two hours it took to watch. Bad acting, horrid script, and far better alternatives that tell the story more accurately make this a useless film.

I wanted to like it, I really did. There was no reason to depart so much from known facts. I should've known better when I saw Jeff Fahey listed as the lead. Has he ever had anything that wasn't straight to video cheese? It's ore a film students project or some kind of attempt to milk tax dollars out of a film incentive program than an honest attempt to make a solid film.

Maybe this movie suffered from the misfortune of my already having seen Kevin Costner's version of the Hatfields and McCoys because it caused me to want to learn more about the events that actually occurred. Sadly, this version failed to make it even to "B" status. This version was so pared down that they messed with a lot of the facts: -Johnse Hatfield did not stay with Rosanna McCoy but under pressure from his family abandoned the relationship. He later married her cousin Nancy McCoy who then left him for Bad Frank Phillips -Randall's wife did not get killed when the house was attacked by Jim Vance; she was driven insane -Ellison Hatfield was not stabbed by two McCoy's but 3 (Tolbert, Pharmer and Bud), who were all then summarily shot by Jim Vance and company upon his death -Bad Jim Vance was not killed by Anse but by Frank Phillips I could go on but I think you get the point. The ending with Johnse showing up with a pregnant Rosanna was just the icing on the cake, trying to have a happy, fairy tale ending where they are one big happy family. The best thing about this version is that they did NOT extend the movie to go onto other events such as Floyd Hatfield's hog, Cottontop being hanged for Alifair McCoy's murder, the Battle of Grapevine Creek, etc.

As far as the acting went, there were no winners here. A lot of the dialogue seemed forced and it failed to stir the least bit of emotion in me to identify with anything the characters went through. Given the choice between the two, go with the Costner version every day of the week.

I THOUGHT I was getting the Hatfields and McCoys with Kevin Costner etc. and didn't realize this was a different version. This was SO lame. Bad, awkward acting, horrible costuming and sets, anachronistic dialogue. Everyone looks perfectly clean, I think I saw a sliding glass door in one exterior of the Hatfield's house and what's with using the phrase "Don't even ..." when one of the Hatfield boys challenges his father. I was surprised they didn't talk about "bustin' a cap" in their McCoy asses at some point. This was just a poorly done production all the way around. Do not waste your time renting this low quality, wannabe, unless you WANT a good laugh. My son and I just wrote our own lines as we watched and laughed a lot!

Having no idea if the intent of this production is to ride the coattails of the History Channel's "Hatfields & McCoys" mini-series one has to think so. Obviously that one raised the current day brand recognition to an all time post WWII height, why not make a few lousy dollars?

Sadly, this seems to be the the purpose of this "K-Mart" version of the tale. I suppose if it wasn't up against the superior History Channel treatment it may look like a much crisper (almost too clear 16:9 production reeks of HD videotape, i.e., no film soft grain) 1970's ABC "Movie of the Week", but since many viewers will be watching this after seeing the far superior Kevin Costner version it pretty much is laughable.

In addition to the bargain basement production values we get a much different story. I know from research that The History Channel deviated somewhat, but here we have a very topical story with seemingly even more deviation. There just ain't any meat on these bones and the bones themselves are broken. In the back of my mind I get the feeling Jeff Fahey might have been quite good if given more to work with...That's about all I can say as the other performances were less than "phoned-in" to coin a phrase.

O.K., it's watchable if somewhat laughable. That's the only reason I give it a 3 (full disclosure: If I had paid to see it the rating would be less). I don't know how much they paid Christian Slater for his meager role here, but seriously are infomercials next?

I've already wasted 75 minutes of my life watching this almost insufferable tripe so I won't waste more than a few minutes writing this review. Like some others here, I bought the DVD, thankfully cheaply in Thailand, confused that it was the other one that rates over 8.0 on IMDb. I take the attitude that a movie is very rarely bad enough not to watch to the end. I mean, how can one have an opinion about any movie (or TV series for that matter) without at least watching the movie to the end? So, good to my word, I watched this one all the way through and WHAT A LONG MOVIE IT WAS FOR ITS 75 MINUTES. In short, the script was awful and the acting wooden. everything went exactly as one would have predicted. It really was laughably bad!! It is through watching this type of crap that one knows what a good movie is by comparison. JMV