The first Hatchet, viewed at home and without the company of others, was
for yours truly, akin to a root canal. Billed as a return to “old
school American horror,” Hatchet was the story of a retarded mutant
ghost named Victor Crowley who is cursed to wander a Louisiana swamp for
all eternity, hacking up all of the tourists, teenagers and senior
citizens who cross his path. To say that I was not a fan is an
understatement, but I was easily in the minority; most horror fans
seemed to dig the films film’s throwback approach and its practical gore
effects, forgiving the lack of a coherent story, likable characters and
a sense of humor that would appeal to anyone outside of the third
grade.
And with that out of the way…
Hatchet 2 is a significantly
better film than its predecessor, the main improvement being that it’s
not completely and totally unwatchable. I felt attacked by the firstHatchet . I was able to sit back and just let the sequel happen in front
of me, even if I wasn’t particularly enjoying it.
The story picks up directly where the first one ended, with Marybeth
(Danielle Harris) narrowly escaping from Crowley (Kane Hodder), getting
to safety and then returning to retrieve the eviscerated bodies of her
family with a team of gun-toting rednecks and an overacting Tony Todd in
tow. Violence happens. Roll credits.
Writer/director Adam Green’s improvement as a filmmaker are evident
from frame one of the film. The (potentially intentional) sloppy
filmmaking of Hatchet is gone and the sequel is pretty slick production,
a;though it maintains the cardboard-and-glue quality of the ’80s horror
it’s paying tribute to. Tonally, Hatchet 2 is almost identical to the
first film, with the 85 minute running time consisting of nothing dick
jokes, boobs, dismemberments and intestinal strangulations, but Green’s
pacing has improved substantially, meaning that whether you like it or
not, Hatchet 2 starts moving at frame one and never slows down until the
credits roll.
That’s the nicest things I can say about Hatchet 2, I suppose. It’s over fast enough to not hurt too much.
By
making a niche film for a niche audience, it’s obvious that Green has
the best of intentions and considering how well the screening went over,
he’s found a fanbase on the same wavelength as himself. For me, though,
the trashy horror films of yesteryear are fun because they represent
the antithesis of quality. They’re a product of their time and place and
whether they were made as cynical cash-grabs or by a filmmaker honestly
trying to make a classic, it’s their lack of self awareness that makes
them so watchable.
But when you take the elements of ’80s horror (hulking slasher
villain, bimbo characters, weak story and no discernible style) and
recreate them with a wink, you lose the honesty that makes bad schlock
fun in the first place. You’re just celebrating shitty filmmaking. I’m
all for watching characters get torn in half or decapitated by a madman
in a swamp, but I’d like a little style, wit or substance with my gore,
thank you very much.
Hatchet 2 is more of the same, more of that “old school American horror.” I’ll just look to the future, thank you very much.
3/10





15 comments
Yes, the first one sucked. I think the only reason it garnered as much notice as it did is because of it's great ad campaign slogan. Too bad the movie didn't live up to it. I won't be seeing the sequel.
I think I bought the first Hatchet at the same time I got Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon. I immediately dismissed it as being the lesser of the two, but after hearing it touted as the second coming I always meant to go back and give it another watch.
Glad to know my first instincts were correct. No desire to see the sequel (save maybe Tony Todd). When do we get another Behind the Mask?
Green is sort of lame. "Old school American horror" means slasher movies about killer retards? Is that as far back as his memory goes? Maybe Hammer is old school. Or Karloff and Lugosi. Or even fucking Ed Wood movies.
Good review. Short…concise…straight to the point. Much like the Hachet films. Sometimes a review tends to be a bit long-winded…explaining every goddamn detail about why things sucked so much or why they were great. This one is refreshing and breezy. Thank you, Jacob Hall…thank you for not being Devin.
I liked the first film and plan on seeing the second. At the very least you have to appreciate the fact that they aren't trying to sell the films as something that they aren't. They are a callback to a type of film that was generally of shit quality, but many of us have nostalgic warm fuzzies for. If a film that places gore, kills, and boobs far above plot, character and theme isn't your cup of tea, you really have no reason to watch it.
Nice write up. Fuck this film.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Saying you don't like a film because it doesn't have "likable characters" is one of the dumbest and laziest critiques you can give. It shows a problem with the reviewer and not the film. Why do you have to like the characters in order to become involved and invested in a film? Their have been many succesful works of art that revolve around unlikable characters. Unlikable characters are often very fascinating. Beyond that, it's a slasher genre staple that these characters are unlikable, barely formed stereotypes so that you root for the villian. The villian is what makes these films into franchises. No one gives a flying fuck about the rest of the characters. PLEASE stop rolling out the bullshit critique of unlikable characters or, at the very least, apply it to a genre that could feasably support this straw man argument. BTW, this is not in defense of Hatchet. Hatchet sucked.
Rental. I have to rent "frozen" too. 2 for 1? Criss cross? I believe the "old school" deal is in the way it was shot, sort of like backyard movie making. I'll say this much…horror is more enjoyable to watch in backyard style than sci-fi or most other genre stuff. I enjoy watching the occasional "Laid to Rest" even if it's schlocky.
there's a difference of unlikeable characters (eg: there will be blood/american psycho) and unlikeable characters that are empy vessels, i'm sure the author of this piece is meaning he latter.
the first hatchet while a piece of shit had very funny, but empty characters, and once crowley came on scene the movie went into the toilet.
wow. i'm tempted to say if you don't like hatchet you're not really a horror fan… but i won't. devin's ff reviews on aicn are owning this dude's
Excellent review. I too saw "Hatchet" as overblown and a disappointing film. We may be in the minority, but that doesn't make us wrong. Thanks for taking the bullet on the sequel. Had more sane reviewers like yourself been reviewing the first film, I wouldn't have had watched that dreck in the first place.
Jacob is obviously a giant douchebag. Any fan of horror movies cannot dismiss Hatchet as a horrible film. Why? Because true horror fans pay dearly for their chosen genre. They have to sift thru many truly terrible films to find even one gem. Hatchet is a gem compared to 99% of the horror crap released. Is it citizen kane? Of course not, its a suspenseful, well made movie with a great villian and an interesting story. In other words fuck you.
I have given a name to my pain, and it is Jacob Hall.
sorry but I don't think the mutant ghost was "retarded." awful sue of a slur but I'm guessing you don't care much about mocking the disabled.
I scored some sweet Hatchet Newbury Comics pint glasses from my brother who works for the company (newbury comics is the boston record store whose t-shirt was on display in the first one). That was about the best thing that came out of hatchet for me.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.