Estrada para o Inferno

The comment during the credits that the film was 'inspired by true events' sets the scene for a truly dreadful piece of schlock that is more a pastiche of slashers such as Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Hills Have Eyes, than it is likely to have anything to do with any real and tragic events.

The voice-over is wooden and unnecessary, highlighting the writer/director's lack of confidence in his ability to carry the story via the characters. Considering the quality of the dialogue, IMHO his lack of confidence is well founded, albeit it's his first outing as a director. Reasonable (and in some cases quality) actors struggle vainly with execrable passages - the tone is set early on in the dialogue between C Thomas Howell and Randy Spelling with their first van-load of transients. As both chew grimly on their lines and giggle inanely they seem more like naughty schoolboys who might slip a frog into Harry Potter's bunk than the seriously deranged, or dehumanised, monsters they attempt to portray.

How Dennis Hopper and Michael Madsen got involved in this piece is beyond understanding...and Hopper in particularly does seem to spend his few scenes looking embarrassed for all concerned.

If Glen Stephens goes on to direct further features, this viewer can only hope that he learnt plenty from his mistakes on this one.

My God, this film is crap. In the first few minutes, you get a feel of 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre', and not a good feeling either. I've came to the conclusion that any film that has Dennis Hopper associated now a days, makes it bad. Let's have a look back. His career started to take a downfall when he made the 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2', ever since, no one in Hollywood wants anything to do with them, since that monstrosity has come crap like 'Land of the Dead', which was George A. Romero's desperate attempt to get attention once again, any attention he'll be getting though is not good attention. And then we come to 'Hoboken Hollow', If you want my advice, please don't watch this movie because you'll be wanting that precious hour and a half back.

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.

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.

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.