jadavix "Lumberjack Man" is a weird, boring stab at a horror comedy that is unsuccessful.Of course it's not in the least funny, but how many comedies are?The fact is that the comedic moments, if that's what they are, are handled so badly that they merely become confusing.It's not enough to throw in a joke here and there. There's also the matter of tone which allows a person to actually identify the joke and (maybe) laugh at it. "Lumberjack Man" has no tone. Nor does it really have a sense of place - the "summer camp" setting for both horror movies (Friday the 13th and its infinite number of rip-offs) and comedies (Meatballs, Happy Campers) for the filmmakers to have some idea of how to present it. But they don't. It feels like most of the action takes place a few miles from the camp anyway. This vague sense of place doesn't help.The movie is, of course, also not scary in the least; it doesn't even really try to be, which is not a problem because no one sees a slasher movie expecting scares. What is a problem is the villain. I don't know what they were going for, but it's one of the least memorable villains I've ever seen in a slasher. It's the typical massive stunt man (and being big does not equal scary) with a face like a block of wood.The explanation for the killer's presence and how to do away with it is, I guess, where the humour comes in. Michael Madsen gives a monologue, complete with an animated sequence, to provide an explanation so moronically bizarre and out of step with everything else in the movie that I couldn't bare to pay attention. It has something to do with pancakes and syrup?This is where the problem with the tone comes in: it's nowhere near ridiculous enough to absorb a sequence like this into the rest of the movie. It doesn't make you laugh at the ridiculousness: it makes you shake your head at the weirdness, and then, of course, you wonder what the filmmakers were thinking, or if they were. You start trying to formulate explanations for how the movie went so wrong.The ending, where this stupid origin story comes into play, is as badly done as you'd expect. I didn't know what was supposed to have happened, but I did know, with one hundred percent certainty, that it had no hope at all of ever being presented cinematically by the people who made this movie.The movie does have quite a bit of nudity (all breast shots). It does the typical thing of having multiple pretty, likable actresses, none of whom provide the above shots. And, weirdly, when the ladies do disrobe, the movie turns into a sexy music video with different music, lighting, dancing. Of course, this only distracts you.As for the "kills", one is fairly memorable: the camp manager is cut in half at the waist, and watches his lower body run away from him.

George Taylor As I write my review of this absolute garbage of a movie, I'm wondering if Michael Madsen needed to pay some back taxes or something. Let's start right up. A bunch of teens (who look nothing but) go off to a Christian Camp. Every character is a stereotype, none can act worth a damn, and the SFX are laughable. Some look like they were rented (the first two women to get killed) from a porn film. Ton's of boring gratuitous nudity doesn't help this poorly paced film. I'll be honest here if it was supposed to be a comedy - it wasn't. Most comedy/horror unless its Shaun of the Dead or Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse, or the first two Scary Movies, suck. If it's supposed to be horror - well, I'm pretty sure people have had more frightening wet dreams. Lets look at a few of the dumber things. Two porn stars (that's what they look like) bum a ride on the school bus. They get busy in a threesome. The killer (who looks part tree and is super strong, so why does he need weapons and what the hell is with those gigantic pancakes?) enters said bus, chops both their heads off (the heads flying out of each window, yanks lover boy to his feet, and stabs him through the chin and brain. Yet, this guy is able to scream? Later said killer hits a ranger in the SPINE with an ax, she's able to crawl away, drive him off with maple syrup (his weakness) and pull the ax out. Another moron has her legs and arms broken (and she's still able to talk) as he tries to make her into a picnic table. This fails and he tosses her off a tree (shades of Jason!) killing her. Another hanging by a foot, has a syrup tap driven into her skull so blood can flow. Anyone bored yet? This is just a lame version of a Friday the 13th with crappier effects. Just avoid this until one is an insomniac or a drunk.

jimbo15 Maybe you have to be in the right mood with the right taste in comedy to enjoy this movie, which is why I think many other reviews are negative. But dang it if I wasn't in the right mood with the right taste in comedy. That doesn't make it a great movie, but it was just the right amount of blood, boobs, and genuine chuckles that I wanted.My advice for enjoying it would be not to expect a good horror movie. It's a decent comedy that alternates between self-aware mockery and nonsensical goofiness (though it's not always 100% clear if it's on purpose).I'd love to hear a director's commentary on this. I'm sure it would be a lot of: "We don't know why we did it this way, but it was funny." or "This didn't quite work, but we left it in." "They didn't have lines, so we let them say whatever."

Bloodmarsh Krackoon Instead of taking the usual stalk and slash formula, Josh Bear decided to take the black comedy route in another 'After Dark' ''classic.'' You won't get many laughs, if any at all, or anything that resembles a decent horror film, but you will get a decent supply of nudity, bad acting, and random dialogue, that doesn't seem to fit, well, anywhere.Unlike Jason Voorhees, 'Lumberjack Man's' main purpose for slicing and dicing innocent, young, terrible actors/actresses, is that he lacks the right type of topping for his Paul Bunyan sized flap jacks (and yes, he carries them around while he's doing his nasty deeds.) I can honestly tell you, that there isn't a single funny moment in the film, much less frightening. It'll just leave you with a dumbfounding look on your face, wondering how this garbage found a distributor. Michael Madsen has always been one dimensional, but that one role that he's capable of playing, landed him in a few good films throughout the years. Now, it seems that he either has a few bad habits, or 20 kids to support, because he's just trying to soak in as many paychecks that he can. However, for a director like Josh Bear, Michael Madsen still probably holds enough weight with some of us, to get 'Lumberjack Man' at least some recognition. Random Ramblings of a Madman: There's nothing much to say about 'Lumberjack Man.' It's not supposed to be serious, or good. So, I guess Josh Bear got the last laugh, after all.