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.
36 Reviews
Yeah, could've been better but ...
Poe-1728 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I grew up in the "fruit tramp" years. My family went from camp to camp in season; cherries, apples, peaches, pears ... whatever harvest was up, that's where we were. Not Texas but California, Oregon and Washington state. There were all these tales about ranches that picked up workers and the workers were never heard from again. Those horror stories were a part of my real past. So this film touched base with my early fears. Since then I've learned how much of that was myth, but also how, a little slice, some of it was true.
Texas got the headlines but it wasn't an isolated thing. Some of the scary stories of my youth weren't tall tales.
Hoboken Hollow is exaggerated cinema but has roots in an ugly reality. And it wasn't just immigrants, poor American's too, working to better themselves. During those years, many went from poverty to okay to middle class working on various ranches.
It could have been better but I'm startled that the story was even told. It's the second half of the Grapes of Wrath.
Just my opinion.
Hoboken Hollow is a sub par film tackling a thin slice of history. It wants to address the subject but lacks the info to do so. Kudos to the attempt.
I think it was honest - partly.
Texas got the headlines but it wasn't an isolated thing. Some of the scary stories of my youth weren't tall tales.
Hoboken Hollow is exaggerated cinema but has roots in an ugly reality. And it wasn't just immigrants, poor American's too, working to better themselves. During those years, many went from poverty to okay to middle class working on various ranches.
It could have been better but I'm startled that the story was even told. It's the second half of the Grapes of Wrath.
Just my opinion.
Hoboken Hollow is a sub par film tackling a thin slice of history. It wants to address the subject but lacks the info to do so. Kudos to the attempt.
I think it was honest - partly.
Connery Goes Gore?
tarbosh2200013 May 2010
"Hoboken Hollow" is a disappointment.
The plot: Trevor (Connery) is a war veteran trying to take life easy and hitchhiking his way to California. While hitchhiking, a trucker named Clayton (Howell) asks him for help on his ranch. Trevor agrees only if he can leave the next day. Trevor finds out very quickly that the ranch is filled with deranged lunatics who like to torture and kill their helpers.
It's a good idea for a movie but it just doesn't work because the pacing is lethargic and the scares are minimal. Howell does a decent job as one of the killers, but Connery is wooden.
If you're thinking "Hey, Madsen and Hopper are in it! It can't be all bad...." well, I'm sorry, you're wrong this around. Hopper is in this for about two minutes and he basically says the same line over and over: "I'll give you a lift to the next town". Madsen has it worse because once again, as in "The Covenant: Brotherhood Of Evil" he has an obviously phony mustache. 2005 was the "glued on facial hair stage" in his career. One more thing: Anthony Michael Hall was one of the producers of this mess. Odd....
"Hoboken Hollow" is a very poor flick, that you should only watch if you're a Madsen or Hopper completist (I've seen "Tycus" and "The Prophet's Game" with Dennis and "Flat Out" with Mike. I deserve a medal. Not Really.) For more insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com
The plot: Trevor (Connery) is a war veteran trying to take life easy and hitchhiking his way to California. While hitchhiking, a trucker named Clayton (Howell) asks him for help on his ranch. Trevor agrees only if he can leave the next day. Trevor finds out very quickly that the ranch is filled with deranged lunatics who like to torture and kill their helpers.
It's a good idea for a movie but it just doesn't work because the pacing is lethargic and the scares are minimal. Howell does a decent job as one of the killers, but Connery is wooden.
If you're thinking "Hey, Madsen and Hopper are in it! It can't be all bad...." well, I'm sorry, you're wrong this around. Hopper is in this for about two minutes and he basically says the same line over and over: "I'll give you a lift to the next town". Madsen has it worse because once again, as in "The Covenant: Brotherhood Of Evil" he has an obviously phony mustache. 2005 was the "glued on facial hair stage" in his career. One more thing: Anthony Michael Hall was one of the producers of this mess. Odd....
"Hoboken Hollow" is a very poor flick, that you should only watch if you're a Madsen or Hopper completist (I've seen "Tycus" and "The Prophet's Game" with Dennis and "Flat Out" with Mike. I deserve a medal. Not Really.) For more insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com
a horror film with a story line
tstephens_0123 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I don't want to say too much about this film so I don't ruin it for others but it is unlike most other horror films in the fact that it has an in-depth story line and it is shot as a sort of docu-drama. What I have noticed about many comments on many sites is that a lot of people are not following the story well. I think this is because most people go to see a horror film and do not expect it to make much sense so they do not pay attention to the details. If you miss some of the story line in this one it can really affect the outcome for you. It is not your typical no brainer, but there are some goods scenes that will make you jump or just plain disturb you. Also has a couple of good twists, I recommend this movie to anyone who likes to think or loves a little bit of gore. Also this movie is "based" on actual events, which makes it that much more unnerving.
What is it about Texas?
maryasha_lubelska23 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
As a European who has now seen umpteen horror movies set in Texas I have to ask: what is it about Texas? There are always people going along the road, a clear blue cloudless sky (clear blue is the new thunder, and lightning, and sunlight is the new Gothic)and they always meet and very foolishly take the mickey out of people with squints, slow gaits and terrible teeth, who are all in cahoots with each other: the lady in the shop is in on it. The sheriff is in on it. The cleaner is in on it. So are the cats, dogs, pigs, goats, octogenarians and five-year-olds. All evil killers. There can't be a single honest homestead in the whole of Texas, or at least homes where the inhabitants are not cannibalistic are in the minority.
This film was a disappointment, being identical, in almost every way, to other films about homicidal Texan families that I have seen, but featuring poorer acting and less atmosphere.
This film was a disappointment, being identical, in almost every way, to other films about homicidal Texan families that I have seen, but featuring poorer acting and less atmosphere.
cheese,formula and guts...
fleakins14 June 2006
this is not a good film to watch if you have ever seen any other 'theres strange related people living out their on the ranch' films. it offers nothing new and just plods along between shots of various transients getting tortured to 'look here i am eating some strange sort of jerky' shots....oh i wonder what that could be. well at least the pigs always get fed, which is probably why they do some of the best acting in the film and you learn never to eat bacon with a tattoo on it. but apart from that unless you live on a ranch,look like your strange relatives, are short on food and need some good evening 'party game' tips it might be better to give this film a miss.
Awesomely Dire!
andyprendy118 April 2006
Tagline should be - "Watching this movie....IS TORTURE"
Supposedly based on real life events on a Southern State ranch, the premise of this move has all the ingredients for a cult classic - murder, torture, cruelty, survival....... However the film seems to have been written and directed by someone who has never seen a movie before. The dialogue, editing and continuity of the film are all laughable. What on earth were Messrs Connery/Madsen/Hopper and Howell all thinking of ? Sure, none of these actors are A-Listers and have appeared in their fair share of turkeys but to stoop this low, I can only imagine the money must have been good or the Producer was one hell of a salesman. The movie even features a voice over sequence for much of Jason Connery's scenes that defies all logic. Dennis Hopper must have contributed about 25 minutes worth of his time for his particular paycheck, and the less said about Michael Madsens performance (or even a reason for his characters presence) the better.
If you see this in your local video store I recommend that unless you are a student of truly poor movie making, you walk on by and select any random film and you will have spent your money more wisely than hiring this garbage.
An absolute turkey.
PS If you enjoyed this movie, you may also enjoy watching paint dry.
Supposedly based on real life events on a Southern State ranch, the premise of this move has all the ingredients for a cult classic - murder, torture, cruelty, survival....... However the film seems to have been written and directed by someone who has never seen a movie before. The dialogue, editing and continuity of the film are all laughable. What on earth were Messrs Connery/Madsen/Hopper and Howell all thinking of ? Sure, none of these actors are A-Listers and have appeared in their fair share of turkeys but to stoop this low, I can only imagine the money must have been good or the Producer was one hell of a salesman. The movie even features a voice over sequence for much of Jason Connery's scenes that defies all logic. Dennis Hopper must have contributed about 25 minutes worth of his time for his particular paycheck, and the less said about Michael Madsens performance (or even a reason for his characters presence) the better.
If you see this in your local video store I recommend that unless you are a student of truly poor movie making, you walk on by and select any random film and you will have spent your money more wisely than hiring this garbage.
An absolute turkey.
PS If you enjoyed this movie, you may also enjoy watching paint dry.
I promise this is the worst movie I've seen this year.
soupstar22 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Contains spoilers (but that doesn't really matter) After reading a couple of the more favourable reviews on IMDb I decided to rent this movie. What a mistake. What a baaaaad mistake.
It starts with Jason Connery's character travelling across America 'to find his smile.... after seeing his best friend killed in Iraq', or so the extremely bad voice over tells us. Then the action quickly jumps over to Hoboken Hollow via a new captive in the back of a van stating "I've heard of Hoboken, my Ma used to say 'Like a bat out of Hoboken" (pffff), and starts to unveil it's selection of completely unbelievable and unscary freaks.
We've got a foreman (Howell) who is trying his best to create a creepy ranch owner but only succeeds in creating a character only Jim Carrey would be proud of. A female 'brains of the operation' who's only slightly scary feature is her acne. A token 'freak' who's weapon of choice is an extremely low powered cattle prod that merely irritates people whenever he tickles them with it and a token 'mentally challenged but psychotic' son who carries out most of the butchery. Oh, and another character who I will mention in more detail later later.
And so it starts.
Now what these people tend to do is go on a drive every morning and pick up a few of the vast selection of conveniently placed hitchhikers that are on offer just waiting on the only road in the town, offer them a job on their ranch and proceed to torture and kill them if they don't work hard enough. Well I say torture but what I mean is poke them with the aforementioned 'Fisher Price' cattle prod.
There is another sub-plot also running alongside this main story, that of Maddsen's character trying to buy up some land a random shop is placed on (I assume this shop is on the ranch but this is never really explained), it's only obvious connection is that the shop sells the human jerky produced from the ranch. (This human jerky is only $15 a packet - hardly worth the effort really), and that the mother of the 'psycho son' runs.
So they've got all these folks stripping cedar (for sale at $50 for a lorry load), and becoming human jerky (for sale at $15 a pack) and everyone's happy until Maddsen makes Howell an offer of $25,000 to grass the others up for their inhumane acts (instead of grassing them up himself?).
The 'psycho son' overhears this and kills Howells, and we find out he's not as stupid or mentally challenged as he had everyone believe (WOW WHAT A (random and meaningless) TWIST!) and that 'acne girl' is not the brains of the operation it's 'psycho son's' Mum who is (ANOTHER (random and meaningless) SHOCKING TWIST).
And then Connery escapes from the ranch and finds his smile. WTF!!!!! Now, all the above could maybe be just about fine but one character really brings this story into the realms of absolute crapness. This character is a worker that has been on the farm for so long that he's become one of the family. The trouble is that this character is soooo inconsistent that it just becomes laughable, at times the story plays on his emotional battle between right and wrong but can't decide exactly where his real emotion lies, one minute he's laughing like a madman when they capture 'new employees', then gets back to the ranch and can't stomach what he's just done, then laughs like a madman when the family are torturing (tickling) one of the workers, then has a breakdown when he gets back to his room, all in the poorest, most unbelievable way imaginable, whilst his 100% normal everyday , non freak girlfriend weeps at their predicament (after getting raped that afternoon but doesn't tell him).
It was extremely hard to put together a cohesive 'outline' to this story due to it's absolute crapness, and in a way I want to say go and watch this film just to see what I'm getting at! But I wont.
The victims in this film would have saved themselves a lot of trouble if they just traversed the waist high (that's right waist high) fence keeping them in walked off down the road in the middle of the night.
It starts with Jason Connery's character travelling across America 'to find his smile.... after seeing his best friend killed in Iraq', or so the extremely bad voice over tells us. Then the action quickly jumps over to Hoboken Hollow via a new captive in the back of a van stating "I've heard of Hoboken, my Ma used to say 'Like a bat out of Hoboken" (pffff), and starts to unveil it's selection of completely unbelievable and unscary freaks.
We've got a foreman (Howell) who is trying his best to create a creepy ranch owner but only succeeds in creating a character only Jim Carrey would be proud of. A female 'brains of the operation' who's only slightly scary feature is her acne. A token 'freak' who's weapon of choice is an extremely low powered cattle prod that merely irritates people whenever he tickles them with it and a token 'mentally challenged but psychotic' son who carries out most of the butchery. Oh, and another character who I will mention in more detail later later.
And so it starts.
Now what these people tend to do is go on a drive every morning and pick up a few of the vast selection of conveniently placed hitchhikers that are on offer just waiting on the only road in the town, offer them a job on their ranch and proceed to torture and kill them if they don't work hard enough. Well I say torture but what I mean is poke them with the aforementioned 'Fisher Price' cattle prod.
There is another sub-plot also running alongside this main story, that of Maddsen's character trying to buy up some land a random shop is placed on (I assume this shop is on the ranch but this is never really explained), it's only obvious connection is that the shop sells the human jerky produced from the ranch. (This human jerky is only $15 a packet - hardly worth the effort really), and that the mother of the 'psycho son' runs.
So they've got all these folks stripping cedar (for sale at $50 for a lorry load), and becoming human jerky (for sale at $15 a pack) and everyone's happy until Maddsen makes Howell an offer of $25,000 to grass the others up for their inhumane acts (instead of grassing them up himself?).
The 'psycho son' overhears this and kills Howells, and we find out he's not as stupid or mentally challenged as he had everyone believe (WOW WHAT A (random and meaningless) TWIST!) and that 'acne girl' is not the brains of the operation it's 'psycho son's' Mum who is (ANOTHER (random and meaningless) SHOCKING TWIST).
And then Connery escapes from the ranch and finds his smile. WTF!!!!! Now, all the above could maybe be just about fine but one character really brings this story into the realms of absolute crapness. This character is a worker that has been on the farm for so long that he's become one of the family. The trouble is that this character is soooo inconsistent that it just becomes laughable, at times the story plays on his emotional battle between right and wrong but can't decide exactly where his real emotion lies, one minute he's laughing like a madman when they capture 'new employees', then gets back to the ranch and can't stomach what he's just done, then laughs like a madman when the family are torturing (tickling) one of the workers, then has a breakdown when he gets back to his room, all in the poorest, most unbelievable way imaginable, whilst his 100% normal everyday , non freak girlfriend weeps at their predicament (after getting raped that afternoon but doesn't tell him).
It was extremely hard to put together a cohesive 'outline' to this story due to it's absolute crapness, and in a way I want to say go and watch this film just to see what I'm getting at! But I wont.
The victims in this film would have saved themselves a lot of trouble if they just traversed the waist high (that's right waist high) fence keeping them in walked off down the road in the middle of the night.
What a waste of £3.95 and two hours!
pinkpirate8312 June 2006
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.
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.
Probably the worst film I've seen in years
hardyan31 May 2006
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.
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.
I don't know what kind of a person would like this but it's not someone I'd want to meet.
melachi16 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Some spoilers but if you're deciding whether to watch this or not, DON'T, you'll regret it..
What an awful movie. I didn't see the point of this at all. If it was going for shock value then it wasn't that shocking in terms of the "torture". It only leaves you with a disgusted feeling when there's no retribution for the Junior after he rapes Teri. If there would've been some sort of retribution for her then you could've walked away with a little bit of satisfaction.
If you're a normal person this will leave you feeling empty and slightly disgusted. I don't see how this could be a cult movie. Any moron can make a meaningless movie with a bunch of white trash torturing people and call it artistic, it's a joke... It's not half as good as House of 1000 corpses or the sequel which still wasn't a particularly good movie.
If I could unwatch this terrible vomit of a film I would. If you're a Michael Madsen/Dennis Hopper fan then they don't feature much in this anyway. This might be setup for a sequel but I won't be holding my breath in excitement. I could be more elaborate than this but the fact that I don't want to waste too much time on a review probably sums this trash up.
What an awful movie. I didn't see the point of this at all. If it was going for shock value then it wasn't that shocking in terms of the "torture". It only leaves you with a disgusted feeling when there's no retribution for the Junior after he rapes Teri. If there would've been some sort of retribution for her then you could've walked away with a little bit of satisfaction.
If you're a normal person this will leave you feeling empty and slightly disgusted. I don't see how this could be a cult movie. Any moron can make a meaningless movie with a bunch of white trash torturing people and call it artistic, it's a joke... It's not half as good as House of 1000 corpses or the sequel which still wasn't a particularly good movie.
If I could unwatch this terrible vomit of a film I would. If you're a Michael Madsen/Dennis Hopper fan then they don't feature much in this anyway. This might be setup for a sequel but I won't be holding my breath in excitement. I could be more elaborate than this but the fact that I don't want to waste too much time on a review probably sums this trash up.
A mind-blowing metaphor!
jeffella-peters24 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this movie with my cousins when I visited England recently and was expecting your typical "based-on-a-true-story" horror film. While it delivered the goods on that front and seemed to please the kids, the more I thought about it, the more it bothered me. It turns out - when I ran it by my parents - that I must vaguely remember the "actual events" from back in the eighties when the creeps that did this stuff -- a lot of it at least -- went to trial. When I went looking around on the internet (I think I searched for "Texas slave ranch" or something like that) I found some articles in the New York Times archive and the movie seemed to be accurate in a lot of ways. Who knows why the idiots didn't gang up on their captors and run away? Or why they didn't turn their axes and chain saws on the slave drivers? I guess each person probably had their own reason for being there. After that I got to thinking about why we average working stiffs let the corporations and police push us around. We'd take 'em easy if you based it on our sheer numbers yet we continue to play the game by their rules. I think it's mostly because it's easier to go with the flow than to deal with what might happen if you buck the system. Most of us don't want to be the one who dies to make an example to the rest. So the metaphor is the Broderick's are the governments and corporations that exploit us and the drifters are us! Heck, it made me want to see it again to test my theory but it's not released here yet.
Certainly Not For The Faint Of Heart But Very Good
hoppz17 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I actually really enjoyed this movie and the fact its based on a true story makes you really feel for the actual people that had to endure this sort of treatment at the real Hoboken Hollow.
Possible Spoilers >
There where a number of bad points and at the beginning it was a little confused and hard to work out who was who and how they where connected but it soon became a bit clearer.
The film isn't scary but it is very uncomfortable to watch with some very nasty scene's and there is little relief or retrebution.
I suppose in that way its fairly depressing but then again it's based on real life and thats pretty depressing sometimes. I think the film makers have succeeded in making a movie that makes you want to know more about the actual event.
The acting is very good although the big names have very limited screen time and i cant help but think they might have done this movie as a favour to get it a bit more exposure. The principal characters are very good and believable and you really hated the villains.
I would have liked to see them get whats coming to them but unfortunately that never really happens that's probably the only bad thing i have to say about the movie.
There has been a few similer Shock/Gory movies released latley such as hostel and saw but to be honest i think this is better than both and a very good horror movie.
I only wish the budget was as high as the fore mentioned movies and maybe this would have been the best horror made in recent years.
Well Recommended to Horror Fans - trust me you will enjoy it.
Possible Spoilers >
There where a number of bad points and at the beginning it was a little confused and hard to work out who was who and how they where connected but it soon became a bit clearer.
The film isn't scary but it is very uncomfortable to watch with some very nasty scene's and there is little relief or retrebution.
I suppose in that way its fairly depressing but then again it's based on real life and thats pretty depressing sometimes. I think the film makers have succeeded in making a movie that makes you want to know more about the actual event.
The acting is very good although the big names have very limited screen time and i cant help but think they might have done this movie as a favour to get it a bit more exposure. The principal characters are very good and believable and you really hated the villains.
I would have liked to see them get whats coming to them but unfortunately that never really happens that's probably the only bad thing i have to say about the movie.
There has been a few similer Shock/Gory movies released latley such as hostel and saw but to be honest i think this is better than both and a very good horror movie.
I only wish the budget was as high as the fore mentioned movies and maybe this would have been the best horror made in recent years.
Well Recommended to Horror Fans - trust me you will enjoy it.
I'm sorry, this film was terrible
level_jumping16 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I am starting to think a lot of the people on here watch too many daytime sitcoms. Apparently no-one here realised that only one person in this whole cast could act. Dennis Hopper. I'm surprised to see him in a film like this...actually I'm not. Now that i remember he was also in "memory"", a film which had, albeit a lesser, problem of bad actors. But that film was 100 times better than this trash.
The farmers and the workers all must be the WORST actors i have ever seen. none of them delivered their lines in anything close to a convincing manner. The direction was TERRIBLE, very clunky, bad angles, bad editing, and the narration was so corny.
I tried to like this film because i am often guilty of enjoying horror films that are bagged by many but there is a main difference...they usually have good direction and capable actors. this movie had none.
The idea was good, but so, so poorly executed. Anyone who disagrees watches too much badly acted soaps.
PS Whoever said it was scary that "most of this actually happened" is clearly a victim of buying into the "based on a true story" thing without even researching. Police found bone fragments of one person, whom they were unable to identify. Only one person was missing (presumed dead). Creative license was handed out greatly on this one. And the movie still sucked.
The farmers and the workers all must be the WORST actors i have ever seen. none of them delivered their lines in anything close to a convincing manner. The direction was TERRIBLE, very clunky, bad angles, bad editing, and the narration was so corny.
I tried to like this film because i am often guilty of enjoying horror films that are bagged by many but there is a main difference...they usually have good direction and capable actors. this movie had none.
The idea was good, but so, so poorly executed. Anyone who disagrees watches too much badly acted soaps.
PS Whoever said it was scary that "most of this actually happened" is clearly a victim of buying into the "based on a true story" thing without even researching. Police found bone fragments of one person, whom they were unable to identify. Only one person was missing (presumed dead). Creative license was handed out greatly on this one. And the movie still sucked.
IT'S TORTURE TIME
nogodnomasters13 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This is another slasher/cannibal story that doesn't include co-eds. A ranch in East Texas takes in transients like a roach motel. They stay alive as long as they work and don't become a problem. The story introduces Trevor (Jason Connery) an an Iraq War veteran, with great expectations, but his he-man part left much to be desired. The cannibal family consisted of quite the colorful cast of backwoods characters, complete with the inbred make-up. The story seemed to move slow for a horror story as events appeared uneventful. Available on several multi-packs. Not recommended as a stand alone purchase.
Rape scene. No nudity.
Rape scene. No nudity.
Somebody owes me some friends
acleon6 May 2006
My friends and I have an ongoing rivalry as to who rents out the best films and it's gonna take me a long time to recover from this rubbish. I watched this film with a bunch of mates but one-by-one everyone made their excuses and left. I reunited with them later on to find that I had a bunch of ex-mates who were bad-mouthing me and my taste in rentals. I'm a stubborn SOB so I watched this thing to the end. Because it was so bad I thought it had to have some kind of amazing ending, but I was gravely mistaken. I'd like to make reference to Hopper's and Madsen's performances but they were so brief and dispensable they're not worth mentioning. My advice is to not rent this film. If you've already rented it, just watch the trailers as the entire plot is summed up there. I like low budget-horror as much as the next man, but most ones that are this bad at least have the decency to include unnecessary lesbian scenes just to keep you interested... this had none. I recommend you use your time more productively, such as shoplifting (or photocopying money) as at least that way there's a chance of you getting something out of it.
So much unrealised potential......
redboo818 April 2006
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.
My wife rented this movie help!
mm-3911 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
My wife rented this movie help! I would not have rented this film. My wife made me watch the whole movie and I suffered just like the victims in this film. Where too begin! The film quality looks like a hand held camera, or camera phone. Yikes, the acting looks improvish! The story is just shock value. Has been actors like Hooper, Madison and Rober Carridine who need the work are there just to suck you in like the victims at the ranch. Huge plot holes. Why would the bad guys give the forced worker a chainsaw? I would be a very deranged victim and would have used the chainsaw. Stupid! I give this film one for their is no minuses for the rating board. Soon to be in the 99 cent buy bin in a video store near you. Don't walk Run away from the box or face my fate. The crap is like the horror movie videodrome the real horror is not the movie but watching it. O the horror of being bored too death.
I'd rather slash myself, than watch this film again
phantomproductions17 May 2006
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.
This film should come with a suicide warning
dmartin-4611 May 2006
This movie looked to be a good proper horror/slasher especially with the cast it had lined up but the big names that they have in big letters across the top of the DVD but they have such small roles and Michael Madsen's role is not necessary at all especially when he looks like an extra in 70's porn flick. The thing that surprises me most about this film is at any giving time there is usually only three people on the ranch two blokes and a hideously ugly women (Mammy and Daddy obviously cousin or siblings) but they have five slaves now with those odds I'd reckon the slaves could take on their captors. But the main problem with this film is the characters talk about what happens to them if they step out of line but you don't see any of it actually happening I'm not to sure if anyone told the director but you need to see that if you want it to be a slasher film and you don't care what happens to any of them either you kinda want them to get sliced and diced. The main method of torture they use is a cattle prod, What ever happened to over sized knives, meat cleavers, hatchets or chainsaws! This film starts of well you kinda of get a Texas chainsaw massacre feel to it but after 10 mins that feeling passes and you are left bewildered. I can not believe Hopper and Madsen lent their reputations to this flick they must of lost a whopper of a bet to do this film. Hoboken Hollow is a dire film with dire acting even worse script. Anyone who claims this to be a good flick is just trying to trick other people into wasting an hour and half of their lives.
Pants. don't bother.
haggis10919 April 2006
Never has a horror film so spectacularly failed to include any of the ingredients needed to make a film scary. the tone is one of mild sarcasm, the actors seem amused to be a part of such a mess and the scriptwriter is assumably a monkey of some sort. There isn't a plot, just a bunch of toothless morons grinning at each other. Yes, there are gory bits, but just showing a severed arm or a bucket of blood isn't enough to terrify anyone these days. Oh, and don't be fooled by the presence of Michael Madsen and Dennis Hopper - they're hardly in it. Guess they just took the money and ran. Dennis Hopper is one of the greatest living actors, and yet he seems happy enough these days to plod along making ten or twenty of these straight-to-DVD obscurities each year.
A true story that makes you think..
thingsareterrible23 May 2006
This film is very documentary . It takes you out of your comfort zone and drops you in the middle of hell. The film places the audience in the lives of people that were actually tortured. I know a lot of people go to see movies for an escape, some go to be entertained, some go for fun. Not to forget those few of us that go to a film to see a bit of truth that is brought by an artistic point of view. This film left me with the most gut wrenching feeling that I've ever had. I felt such sadness for the poor victims that actually went through this torturous experience. I really admire the film makes that went out on a limb to make his film. I"m sure they knew ahead of time that viewers would give them grief that they didn't put ten half naked models running around screaming with their hands in the air. I'm sure some viewers were upset when a guy didn't jump out from behind the door and say boo...
To wrap this up, if you are an intelligent person and want to see what an actual horror film is all about, then this picture is right up your alley. It's probably the only film I've seen where I was actually scared for the victims.
Strong content so be warned.
To wrap this up, if you are an intelligent person and want to see what an actual horror film is all about, then this picture is right up your alley. It's probably the only film I've seen where I was actually scared for the victims.
Strong content so be warned.
Horrible, But Not Bad
tsmt011 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Since I had a unique perspective behind the scenes, to include providing the use of my large fixer-upper house, I'll leave it up to IMDb to decide if this should be a review or if I should post it in one of the discussion forums. Anyway here goes.
Two years from the time my old house was besieged by film crew and actors, I found the one rental DVD copy that our San Angelo TX Hastings store had. I popped it into my DVD player, cranked up the old television and settled down with beer and popcorn in one of the very rooms upstairs where a scene had been shot. After some hype, anticipation, and production company aftermath, I could finally see Hoboken Hollow for myself.
I'd already read a number of reviews, had seen trailers along with the first few minutes thanks to the internet, and had my trusty copy of the script. So I knew I was a little 'front loaded' for the experience.
As advertised, the beginning was somewhat hodgepodge. A lot of characters and things were introduced all at once. This made me want to look for the guy who runs around selling programs, saying you can't tell the players without a program. Things then settled down to an easy, nearly leisurely pace. If there were one major criticism on my part, the pace would be it. I think an easygoing pace was intended to contrast with the shock and intensity of the torture scenes, but if that was the idea, it needs some work. I will qualify this criticism in that it may be my own theatrical background speaking there.
This movie tells a story beyond the scope of a horror flick. It requires some attention, (or in my case my aforementioned trusty script). I'm not a connoisseur of horror films and I think it would be a disservice to rate this film solely on that basis.
As for a few plot elements, I do note the similarity between the words Hoboken and Hokey. I would expect a chainsaw to trump a cattle prod and the lone shotgun to be commandeered by the majority slave population, given the opportunity. I don't know what the actual Ellebracht family did to keep all these folks in line, but it had to have been better than this, which was nearly laughable in places.
But I can't dismiss it; this could be a sad commentary on the people down on their luck that blundered into such a place. Why would they choose to remain suppressed as slaves, even to the point of death? A previous review makes the comparison with mid-level employees trapped in the shenanigans of a cooperation. They are used to this and even want a piece of the action for themselves. I find that as frightening as any of the torture and abuse.
The rape scene was straight from a nightmare, never mind the given repulsiveness of such an act. This was like watching a train wreck and not being able to do anything about it, and trust me, I would have decommissioned the perpetrator(s). Even though I knew about the scene from my script, I was left physically ill after watching it.
That scene, harsh as it was, probably epitomized much of what must have happened during the time the actual ranch was in business. And Teri, like the rest of the 'employees' there, seems to go on, resigned to more of the same, no longer able to muster the effort to get out. She holds one last hope for Trevor to come back and rescue her.
The script has Trevor narrating the movie in voice over, and based on reviews I've read, this was probably the version released "across the pond". Unfortunately the reviews of the narration were less than stellar. So it appears a decision was made to make an edit of the DVD for release here in the states with somebody else narrating. The person with the honors this time is Weldon (in his non-stupid character). Weldon's narration is well done, short and to the point. I hear what I think is Glen Stephens adding a few remarks. Weldon's identity as narrator is not revealed until the end.
The photography has been mentioned in previous reviews. I was quite impressed with the way shots were set up during what I saw of the filming and I see where that paid off in the final product. Definitely good work there.
The music was very good, with one possible exception of becoming a little repetitive at one point about two-thirds through the movie. The music complimented the action well.
And so, I give my rating of 6 stars out of 10. It sure as hell leaves you thinking. As a fellow Menardian, I wish Glen Stephens the best in his future works. Based on the little that I know about horror films, I think Hoboken Hollow is not bad for a first endeavor into this realm.
Two years from the time my old house was besieged by film crew and actors, I found the one rental DVD copy that our San Angelo TX Hastings store had. I popped it into my DVD player, cranked up the old television and settled down with beer and popcorn in one of the very rooms upstairs where a scene had been shot. After some hype, anticipation, and production company aftermath, I could finally see Hoboken Hollow for myself.
I'd already read a number of reviews, had seen trailers along with the first few minutes thanks to the internet, and had my trusty copy of the script. So I knew I was a little 'front loaded' for the experience.
As advertised, the beginning was somewhat hodgepodge. A lot of characters and things were introduced all at once. This made me want to look for the guy who runs around selling programs, saying you can't tell the players without a program. Things then settled down to an easy, nearly leisurely pace. If there were one major criticism on my part, the pace would be it. I think an easygoing pace was intended to contrast with the shock and intensity of the torture scenes, but if that was the idea, it needs some work. I will qualify this criticism in that it may be my own theatrical background speaking there.
This movie tells a story beyond the scope of a horror flick. It requires some attention, (or in my case my aforementioned trusty script). I'm not a connoisseur of horror films and I think it would be a disservice to rate this film solely on that basis.
As for a few plot elements, I do note the similarity between the words Hoboken and Hokey. I would expect a chainsaw to trump a cattle prod and the lone shotgun to be commandeered by the majority slave population, given the opportunity. I don't know what the actual Ellebracht family did to keep all these folks in line, but it had to have been better than this, which was nearly laughable in places.
But I can't dismiss it; this could be a sad commentary on the people down on their luck that blundered into such a place. Why would they choose to remain suppressed as slaves, even to the point of death? A previous review makes the comparison with mid-level employees trapped in the shenanigans of a cooperation. They are used to this and even want a piece of the action for themselves. I find that as frightening as any of the torture and abuse.
The rape scene was straight from a nightmare, never mind the given repulsiveness of such an act. This was like watching a train wreck and not being able to do anything about it, and trust me, I would have decommissioned the perpetrator(s). Even though I knew about the scene from my script, I was left physically ill after watching it.
That scene, harsh as it was, probably epitomized much of what must have happened during the time the actual ranch was in business. And Teri, like the rest of the 'employees' there, seems to go on, resigned to more of the same, no longer able to muster the effort to get out. She holds one last hope for Trevor to come back and rescue her.
The script has Trevor narrating the movie in voice over, and based on reviews I've read, this was probably the version released "across the pond". Unfortunately the reviews of the narration were less than stellar. So it appears a decision was made to make an edit of the DVD for release here in the states with somebody else narrating. The person with the honors this time is Weldon (in his non-stupid character). Weldon's narration is well done, short and to the point. I hear what I think is Glen Stephens adding a few remarks. Weldon's identity as narrator is not revealed until the end.
The photography has been mentioned in previous reviews. I was quite impressed with the way shots were set up during what I saw of the filming and I see where that paid off in the final product. Definitely good work there.
The music was very good, with one possible exception of becoming a little repetitive at one point about two-thirds through the movie. The music complimented the action well.
And so, I give my rating of 6 stars out of 10. It sure as hell leaves you thinking. As a fellow Menardian, I wish Glen Stephens the best in his future works. Based on the little that I know about horror films, I think Hoboken Hollow is not bad for a first endeavor into this realm.
Why???
animatralex4 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I give it one star purely out of respect for Dennis Hopper (oh Dennis, where did it all go wrong?) This was a horrible film. And by horrible, I mean waste of time. OK, some of the gore was quite realistic if a little excessive, but that might be all it has going for it. The 'acting' is merely an imitation of some of the worst hillbilly-killer-mutilator-family stereotypes - either that or 'I'm hitch-hiking in American backwater country and I don't understand why this is happening but I will find my resolve and overcome'...yada yada yada.....
If you've ever seen a horror movie, chances are you will recognise at least one part of this. As a blatant rip off, it still sucks. As a film in it's own right....it should be ashamed of itself....
If you've ever seen a horror movie, chances are you will recognise at least one part of this. As a blatant rip off, it still sucks. As a film in it's own right....it should be ashamed of itself....
wasted some of my life
lee-fewtrell9 March 2012
I was actually quite looking forward to this one- sounded good, promising cover and based on true events. What more could you ask for? Well, the short answer to that is anything that wasn't this. I've seen some stinkers in my time, but this has to rate as one of the worst. A very noteworthy cast- Dennis Hopper, Michael Madson, Lyn Shaye and oh.... C. Thomas Howell and Jason Connery. If Connery Jnr is in anything, you know it's going to be cheap and BAD. The actual story is very fragmented- you don't actually know why they're killing people, least of all I couldn't make it out apart from being sadists with a pathetic little cattle prod that kept poking people in the neck. Its a very basic version of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre for kids- implied cannibalism, a hulking big brother with limited intelligence, and general lunacy all round. A rape for no apparent reason to the plot, people who could have escaped but decided they liked it there, a lot of rubbish about Cedar wood that was just dull, and a mentally challenged fat madman who wasn't after all. The whole thing just stunk. If you're thinking of watching this- please don't.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
