mdamien13

It's tough to criticize this movie because really I knew what I was getting into with the lame cover art and the complete lack of a description on the back (the back of the DVD case is just a retelling of the Sawney Bean clan). Still, I was hoping for either something that was so bad it was funny or at least so bad it was amusing.

Instead, this is just so bad it's tedious. It's not a bad looking movie like most of the other shot-on-video productions that go straight to video, and there are some decent gore effects here or there, but the whole time it feels like the cast and crew are just sleepwalking through the thing for a paycheck. There's not a scent of originality here whatsoever - the whole plot was lifted from the original "The Hills Have Eyes", only without the fleshed out characters or compelling antagonists. Speaking of the antagonists - what the heck are a bunch of kilt wearing cave people doing in the mountains of California? Did I miss that explanation? Did I miss the explanation of why they behave like a high school production of The Flinstones? Yawn.

The only redeeming thing about this movie was trying to guess whether or not the lead actress was wearing a wig or not. I vote for yes. Either that or she should never work with her stylist from this flick ever again.

Congratulations, Asylum, you have suckered me once, but this is the last time I am using my hard-earned cash on one of your cop out excuses for cinema.

It used to be that video distributors like Sub Rosa and Brain Damage Films would release low-budget, shot-on-video horror films to a select market of gorehounds that ate them up with glee. That's acceptable to me, because you could see these movies from a mile away with their shoddy box art and cheesy titles.

Now we have Lions Gate getting into the mix, only they have decided that it'd be better to sucker in poor saps by putting a "professional" looking cover on it and charge the same price as one of their higher-budget, professionally made features. Do not be suckered in by this! Granted, if you've seen Dark Harvest 1 or 2 than you already know what to expect with 3 but there is a place for movies like this and it is not on a video store shelf beside professionally-made features.

I am a fan of independent cinema and have watched several low budget, shot-on-video productions that were still a worthy rental but this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The "acting" (if you can call it that) was abysmal. It was amusing to laugh at the horrible line reading for a minute or two, but eventually it was too much to take and became unbearable. The story is bad, the dialogue is worse, the acting somehow manages to be even worse. The only possible saving grace to this would be one disemboweling scene that still manages to be awful but is an award winning effect when compared to the blood splatters after a girl is slapped or the mannequin decapitation.

It took me three tries to make it through this entire movie and I only did so because I paid good money to rent it and felt like I should at least finish it all the way through. Stay away - stay far, far away from this one.

This movie is yet another in the long line of no budget, no effort, no talent movies shot on video and given a slick cover to dupe unsuspecting renters at the video store.

If you want to know what watching this movie is like, grab a video camera and some red food dye and film yourself and your friends wandering around the neighborhood at night growling and "attacking" people. Congratulations, you've just made "Hood of the Living Dead"! Now see if a distribution company will buy it from you.

I have seen some low budget, shot on video films that displayed talent from the filmmakers and actors or at the very least effort, but this has neither. Avoid unless you are a true masochist or are amused by poorly made horror movies.