movieman_kev As the film opens recently widowed Lacey is desperately trying to insist to her friend, Cindy, that she doesn't need another man in her life. However later that same day when she accidentally runs into someone she believes to be the new handyman, she invites him into her house to make amends to this guy who reminds her so much of her husband somehow. Meanwhile the radio is issuing an urgent message about a dangerous convict on the loose. Are these two events linked somehow? You bet your sweet ass they are.Oh where do I even begin to tell you what was wrong with this film. OK, right off the bat, the whole issue with the cover being so VERY misleading (there's no chainsaw, the population is a bit higher then depicted) has been said over and over so I won't repeat it here (oops just did). Then there's another character that's in the film skulking around Lacey's property that's never really explained. The sheer lack of chemistry between the two leads makes the first 20 minutes are so supremely implausible at best, and a big F you to the intelligence of the audience at worst. Also later in the film when a certain character is portrayed as crazy, the whole film turns into a (unintentional) comedy of errs. To round things off, I hated the soundtrack and the person who did the editing for the movie must have been legally blind.My Grade: D Where i saw it: Instant Netflix via Xbox 360

TelevisionJunkie A woman in an isolated farm house takes in a man under the assumption he's her new handyman.Before I say anything else, I should say that "Hobb's End" feels like it could have originated as a stage-play (it could have been successful on the stage)... or '70s movie-of-the-week. To say that it's slow and talky is an understatement.This film seems to have gotten a horrible rap, mainly due to the fact that it was marketed to the wrong sort of audience. Not that there's a huge audience for this sort of movie. The packaging depicts a man with a bloody chainsaw (no chainsaw is even used in the film) and the description on the back blatantly gives away the twist. The body count is low, the gore is barely seen and the film crawls along from start to finish. Not exactly the slasher film that the box leads you to believe it is. And to boot, the audience is enticed early on with a tale of a "curse" that really has nothing to do with the plot.The film fits into more of a "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf"-type psychological-drama category, but there are many factors (revealed late into the film, but disclosed on the box) that push it into the horror genre. The story unfolds at a slow pace with lots of twists and distractions, and a good chunk of the dialogue has a payoff of some sort or another.Taking into consideration what sort of film it REALLY is, it's quite good. Catarina Conti gives a fine performance as the heroine. At times she comes off sort of wooden, though it's because of the character and not her performance. Brennan Elliot gives a very layered performance as a psychopath that's really quite intriguing if you're up to going with it. The production values are modest at best ('70s TV-movie really does come to mind) but it's well-filmed with some beautiful snowy scenery. Perennial soundtrack band Wild Colonials provide the songs in the film, beginning with an infectiously goofy ditty called "Quarrel-Tet" that plays over the opening titles (a song that it's hard to shake from my head once its in there).The film is not for most tastes, but it's a good risk for lovers of plays or those up to taking a chance on a film that's more talk than action.

jac_attack548 I don't believe this movie was as HORRIBLE as some people make it out to be (pul-eaze). You have to agree with me that you HAVE seen worse movies than this. At least this movie had some twists and a very believable leading actor, that goes by the name of Brennan. If you (the public) understood the film, even if you jumped just once, the whole cast and crew have succeeded. Think about that.Brennan's character was at constant struggle. I believe he captured the basic feeling of a serial killer. Brennan understood the major split between the loving side and the extremely violent side of Michael. You can't sit there and tell me you didn't see it! He succeeded in showing one side to his romantic interest, and then putting a knife to her throat as his other side came out. You (the public) might complain, but all I saw was an actor doing his best to spell it out for John Q. Public. Which I believe was successful. Also, I'm sick and tired of people telling me that the scenes were incomplete or that the actors were bad. If it's so easy, I want to see more of YOU doing it. Now don't you feel ashamed? You're taking someone's art; someone's heart and soul, and ripping it apart just because it didn't fit YOUR standards. Get a life. Respect that someone broke their back making this film and then getting it out to YOU. They want to entertain YOU.

Clint Walker It's hard to express sometimes just how bad a motion picture is. I mean after all, haven't we ALL had someone come up to us and say, "It's the WORST motion picture I've ever seen?" After a while, the term really doesn't have much meaning anymore.While I can't quite say that this is the worst horror film I've ever seen (after seeing literally thousands of them, that honor I give to "Rat Man" with "Beast in the Cellar" ranking a close runner up), it certainly does rank up there in the top bracket of lameness which I usually reserve for older films (for some reason I expect modern day direct-to-video horror movies to suck).So what's wrong with it? Well, first of all it fails a usually sturdy horror movie concept (self-reliant woman fights for her life in an isolated rural setting against one or multiple assilaints). Here we get an endless 100 minutes of an unappealing actor trying to hide he's a psychopath (a character as supposedly smart as the woman in this movie should have been able to tell after her first conversation with him, but like the rest of the movie, she remains stone still with a concerned look on her face while he has any number of freak outs), mixed with clumsily directed murder scenes, and an ridiculously repetitive and drawn-out final twenty minutes.oh yeah, and there's some stuff about this guy being a shape shifting, mind-reading serial killer who may be possessed by the spirit of some kind of dead prospector who has cursed the valley. Oh man...For better entries in this sub-genera (I'm picking more obscure ones) try, "Death Weekend," "Fortress," or even "Rituals" even though that last one is more of a "Deliverance" copy than anything else.