Black Mass (2015) Review & Recommendation.

Black Mass is another attempt to glorify mafia life and create nostalgia about the "good ol' days."

Let's be honest, if you have seen one mafia movie, then you have seen them all.  Johnny Depp plays the role of a lunatic mob boss, Whitey Bulger, in Boston; specifically South Boston (or to the natives Southie).

The story chronicles Bulger's trials and tribulations as a Boston mafia kingpin.  Now I know technically the term "mafia" is reserved for the Italians; however, I will use mafia, here, to apply to Black Mass because aside from the ethnic differences, there are not many other differences between what Bulger does in this move compared to what the Italians do in every other mafioso film.  The reason I bring this up at all is because in the movie the Irish are at war with the Italians, and I don't want to give off the impression that Bulger is associated with the Italians by labeling him as a member of the 'mafia.'  However, with this distinction noted, Bulger could be said to be a member of the Irish mafia; so, I will stick with this terminology for the remainder of the review.

Speaking of wars between the Irish and Italians, Bulger allies with an FBI agent in order to help defeat an Italian crime family, which poses a threat to criminal activity that Bulger is conducting.  The FBI agent is an old friend of Bulger's and so the movie leads us to believe that because these two have a history that the FBI agent is more likely to side with Bulger rather than the FBI.  Indeed, this is what ends up happening.  The FBI agent gets in "too deep" with Bulger and becomes implicated in Bulger's criminal activity.  You should see where this is going because it's the typical premise of every other mafia movie made; it's all about territory and respect.  However, in this film, the respect factor is mitigated by the fact that Bulger is a sociopath and enjoys being involved with criminal activity for its own sake.

For those who enjoy mafia style movies, then this will definitely scratch that itch.  The story is interesting and engaging.  Depp does a real nice job of portraying a sociopath just like he did in Secret Window (which is a phenomenal movie you should see, if you haven't).  The overall acting is on point for this style of movie and the character develop is decent as well.  Also, there will be some folks out there who remember hearing about Bulger because this movie is based off of "real events" and took place in the late 70's and early 80's.  So, like I said at the beginning, there is going to be a bit of nostalgia to be had from watching this movie.

On the flip side, if you don't like mafia movies or have no interest in watching a movie that walks you through the life of crime boss, then you probably are going to want to stay away from this movie.  I would even venture to say that while there is some okay character development, the characters are not themselves very deep.  There is a bit of shallowness to the characters, but then again we're talking about the career criminals how deep can they get?

 If you do end up deciding to watch this movie, then just realize that it's not going to blow you away or have any fancy twists.  It is what it is.

"The Forest" (2016) Movie Review

This movie didn't get great reviews but I think its still a decent movie to watch. In a previous review, I talked about how you can get the full effect of watching a horror movie, and for this one you need to do that. Whether it be in theaters or at home, you need to watch this movie in the dark. Aside from that the jump scenes are excellent, the story is kind of slow, and the acting is meh. To tell you the truth, I was more interested in the story about the forest that they gave in the movie than the actual plot itself.

The main characters Sara and Jess are twin sisters that are complete opposites. Sara is a well grounded person with a good head on her shoulders and Jess is the artsy, try anything once type of person. Jess teaches English in Japan and has been missing for a couple of days. Sara, who is in America, gets a call from Japanese authorities notifying her sister went into the famous Aokigahara Forest and had been missing for days her missing in the  sister.  After some back and forth with her fiance, she heads off to Japan to find Jess. Throughout her travels from the states to Japan Sara talks about her "magical" twin link with Jess. She gave the example of when Jess had a drug overdose and her heart stopped, they were states apart when this happened but she said she couldn't "feel" her anymore. She uses this logic to justify the search and why she thinks her sister is alive.
She found more evidence of the forest while going through Jess' apartment and where she work. There's a really good scene where Sara goes to Jess' class that she taught and all the students scream and freak out  because they thought she was a ghost.

I'll jump forward a little bit to what I think the most interesting part of the movie is; the story about the forest. The Aokigahara Forest is an actual forest that is at the base of Mt. Fuji. Hundreds of years ago families would take their sick or dying family members there to die. Presently people who are contemplating suicide go to the forest to either go through with it or realize that they don't want to die.

Due to all the deaths that have happened in the forest, they believe that it is haunted. They advise visitors to stay on the path and to focus on what they were there to do. There are so many deaths there that annually the police go through the forest and remove as many bodies as they can find.  There are a couple documentaries out there on YouTube that are really interesting to watch.  These documentaries are arguably better stories than the film portrays.

Ill leave the rest for you to see, there is a really weird twist at the end that I either didn't understand or it was just done poorly.

"The Human Centipede" Gives New Meaning to "Kiss My Ass"

So, I have to admit, yesterday was the first time I have seen "The Human Centipede." 

The plot: An achieved doctor known for his work in separating siamese twins at birth also is a mad scientist.  He is obsessed with conjoining human beings at the anus and the mouth; thus, making a 'human centipede.'  

One cold and raining night two American tourists in Germany (or at least a German speaking country) are driving their rental car.  They become lost on a dark and desolate road at which point their car gets a flat tire.  Neither one of the two girls know how to fix a flat tire.  They try to call the rental car place in order to have someone pick them up or fix the flat tire; however, there is no cell phone signal.  They begin to walk on the dark and desolate road, but somehow end up in the forest.  

They stumble upon a house, it begins to rain, and they bang on the door until you know who answers: the mad scientist.  He invites them in and offers them water.  They accept.  The mad scientist slips the date rape drug into their waters.  The drink the waters and pass out accordingly.  The mad scientist drags them to his "layer" and ties them to hospital gurneys.   

The mad scientist then obtains one more person, a Japanese fellow, and ties him to a hospital gurney in his "layer" next to the two American tourists.

The mad scientist then performs and operation wherein he sews one of the American girls' face, mouth open, to the anus of the Japanese guy.  The mad scientist, then, sews the other girl's face, mouth open, to the anus of the first American girl; thus, creating an ass-to-mouth 'human centipede.' You can infer the consequences of such a configuration; so, I'll let your imagination do that work.

The rest of the movie is about the doctor trying to condition, like one would do with a dog, the 'human centipede.'  

The Recommendation:

Strange movie to say the least.  I do not recommend it for anybody with a weak stomach or anyone who is not experienced in watching horror movies that push the boundaries of what can be done in the name of entertainment.  There really is not too much overt gore; however, there need not be because our imaginations are able to pick up on the pungent horrificness going on within the film.

I do recommend this movie for the experienced horror movie enthusiast.  This movie is especially suited for those who enjoy watching a film that takes you into the deep recesses of what the human psychology can label as 'enjoyable,' 'entertainment,' or even 'art.'  There is definitely some thoughtful debates about what counts as 'art' to be had after one views this film.  Those folks who are interested in that kind of debate are more likely than not going to appreciate this film rather than your average person who likes the occasional 'scary' flick.

"The Human Centipede" as of 2/6/2016 is available on Netflix.

I plan on watching "The Human Centipede 2" within the next couple of days.  So, stay tuned for a run down on that one, and a comparison to the first.

Let us know what you thought about "The Human Centipede" in the comment section.

Who's Worse: Tony Stark or The Winter Soldier

Who's worse: Tony Stark or The Winter Soldier

Comic book movie fans are more anxious than ever to see the new Captain America Civil War movie after watching the new trailer during the Superbowl. There's been a lot of buzz on the internet about people all of a sudden switching sides from Cap to Iron Man. Is it because we see Stark with a cool new gadget that helps him from being killed by the Winter Soldier? Or is it because we see War Machine is fatally wounded or even dead in his cut scene? What ever the reason we won't find out until movie comes out of course, but I recently came across a comment that said that the Winter Soldier had done more wrong than Tony Stark before he stopped making weapons. Lets look at the good and bad of each character and determine who's worse.

Good: Bucky Barnes (before becoming the Winter Soldier)

- was not a bully, he was best friends and defended Steve Rogers long before he became a super soldier
- was drafted into the Army during WWII and became the rank of Sergeant
- was a POW (prisoner of war)
- became part of the Howling Commando's
- was an amputee (wounded warrior)
- was experimented on, mind controlled, lost all memory of his former life, frozen and had his memory erased after each mission as the Soldier
- saved Captain America from drowning after remembering who he was
- takes the place of Captain America in his absence (in the comics)

Bad: Winter Soldier

- was an assassin who killed anyone from scientist to political figures
- killed Tony Starks' parents (maybe Iron Man finds out about this in the movie and goes after him)
- attempted to kill Nick Fury
- shot twice and attempted to kill Black Widow
- shot Captain America and attempted to kill him
- killed and destroyed numerous Shield agents and equipment

I'm sure there's a lot more good or bad that he had done that's not on my list. Although the Winter Soldier committed the crimes, should he really be held responsible? I know I probably sound like a lawyer, but he was not in his right state of mind. This guy is a hero in my eyes, WWII vet, POW, amputee, all in the name of defending his country. His previous life and the good deeds he has done far outweighs the bad things that he did. He was forced and did not choose to do those bad deeds. Now let's look at Iron Man.

Good: Iron Man (post capture from the Ten Rings)

- undid wrongs against the people who were using his weapons for bad/terrorism
- stopped making weapons for profit (making for self)
- made a eco friendly sustainable energy source
- provided the government with an Iron Man suit (War Machine)
- joined the Avengers and saved New York from aliens and a nuke
- took down Aldrich Killian, Whiplash
- Helped create Vision
- funded the Avengers and built them their buildings, inhanced weapons, and armor

Bad: Tony Stark (pre come to Jesus moment)

- was self centered
- sold weapons for profit and didn't care about the consequences
- was captured and held prisoner to make one his weapons under the order of his business partner  because of the lack of leadership he took in his business
- he rushes into situations without thinking
- he could have prevented Aldrich Killian from being a bad guy if he wasn't drunk and selfish
- he could have easily made Extremis for good use a long time ago (At the end of the third movie he said it was an easy problem to solve)
- responsible for creating Ultron ( although Scarlet Witch pushed him on that direction)

Like I said with the Winter Soldier, I'm sure there last a lot of good and bad that I've missed on the list. My opinion is that Bucky was and has always been a good guy at heart. Whereas Tony chose to be a self centered asshole. Don't get me wrong, I love RDJ and the Iron Man/Tony Stark character. But if you think about it most of the problems that he had faced or even the entirety of Avengers 2 were based on his actions. He has caused so many problems in his life that he wants to try to fix things before they happen. It's a very logical way to think, but I think that we're going to see the results of his actions play out in the new Captain America: Civil War movie. If you didn't know already, I'm team Cap all the way.

Tell me what you think. Are you for team Cap or team Iron Man? Will Tony finally find out that the Winter Soldier killed his parents? Wouldn't it be a great plot twist if Bucky was still under mind control throughout the entire movie and he was the one to kill Captain America?

What The Hell Did I Just Watch? "Stitches" Movie Review

Netflix, you dirty ol' bastard!  Well, I have just been tricked again by Netflix to watch a movie that I have mixed feelings about.  Let me explain.

First, let me just get the plot of this movie called 'Stitches' out into the open so you have an idea from where I am coming.

******Spoiler Altert******

Stitches is, essentially, a movie about a party clown (Stitches), who is killed within the first 10 minutes of movie as a result of receiving a kitchen knife to the face.  The rest of the movie is about Stitches coming back to life, a clown zombie if you will, and exacting his revenge on all those who have wronged him; specifically, the kids who teased him at the birthday party where he died.  

I am going to highlight the plot a bit further now in order to explain my mixed feelings about this film.

The movie begins when Stitches arrives at a kid's birthday party. Stitches, then, attempts to entertain the kids with a variety of clown tricks.  The kids are not thrilled by the clown's antics.  So, they begin to tease the clown and give him a hard time.  Specifically, one kid ties Stitches' shoe strings together (classic prank), while another kid throws a ball at Stitches causing him
to go off-balance and fall directly onto a kitchen knife that was placed, by an adult, in a dishwasher with the blade sticking straight up.

Who puts a kitchen knife in the dishwasher with he blade sticking straight up and then leaves the dishwasher open, especially with kids hyped up on cake running around???

Anyway, as I said before, Stitches falls on the knife and it goes through his left eye and out the top of his skull.  Blood, brains, and gore spray everywhere (I mean everywhere). It's hilarious the amount of blood and brains that spew from this clown's head wound.  But this is only the beginning of the gore that ensues during the rest of the movie.

At this point, Stitches is "dead" and buried in a grave yard.  The kid, who was having the birthday party, goes to the grave yard and witnesses an ancient clown ritual being performed.  Apparently, when clown's receive their official induction into the 'clownship' they are given an egg with their clown faces painted on it.  This egg is symbolic of the eternal life as a clown.  It also is the thing that ends up destroying the zombie version of Stitches at the end of the movie.

We fast forward 6 years later when the kids are adolescences in middle-school.  The former birthday boy has a pretty severe case of PTSD from the incident 6 years before.  He hallucinates frequently of people around him turning into clowns and performing gruesome acts on other people around him.  For example, one hallucination is when he is sitting in a classroom with his classmates, the teacher turns into a murderous clown, walks up to a kid and rips his dick off in the middle of class.  Then, the clown, who now has a kid's dick in his hand, trots around the classroom displaying the dick to everyone.  Oh, and as the viewers to this spectacle, we are graciously awarded the opportunity to watch the clown rip the kid's dick off while the camera is zoomed in on the entire ordeal.  So, not only do we see the dick being ripped off, but we see it up close and personal and there is plenty of flesh ripping imagery to accompany it.

Shortly after that entertaining sequence (can I call it entertaining???), we learn that it is the hallucinating kid's birthday again.  So, the kid wants to have a birthday party.  He invites the entire school over to his house and a ton of people show up.

During the party, Stitches is magically resurrected from the grave and on a mission to kill all of the kids responsible for his death.  The rest of the movie is about Stitches cleverly and creatively killing a bunch of kids.  For example, he kicks a kid's head off, stabs a girl through the eye with an umbrella, uses a ice-cream scooper to scoop a kid's brains out of his head while simultaneously making an ice-cream sunday; only instead of ice-cream, Stitches uses brains, and disembowels a one guy turning the removed bowel in a balloon animal; specifically, a dog.  All of these acts are accompanied by exaggerated gore, blood spewing, raunchy carnage, screaming, and howling cries of pain by Stitches' victims as they are mutilated.

The movie ends with the birthday boy destroying the egg with Stitches' clown face drawn on it.  When the egg is destroyed, Stitches explodes, but get this, he explodes and the resulting carnage is egg yolk.  And once Stitches is dead, everybody lives happily ever after.

Or do they???

Alright, let me return to what I started this post out with; namely, that I have mixed feelings about this movie.  However, I must first make a confession.  While writing this post I realized something -- I love this movie.  The hyperbolic gore, blood, bad acting, and overall raunchiness speaks to me in a way that I want an independent B-horror movie to speak.  I don't expect this kind of movie to have a good plot or character depth.  I watch these movies because I want to be grossed out, but I also want laugh at the grossness.  Let's call Stitches what it is, a low budget gross out film, and, as such, I can assure you that it delivers.

I don't need to bother recommending this movie because if you are a fan of B-horror movies, then you already know what Stitches is all about.  And if you don't like B-horror movies, then there is no need to waste time trying to convince you that you should watch it.  This movie was made for a particular audience and they know who they are.  However, for those of you who are on the fence about it, give it 15 minutes and if after that you don't like it, turn it off because chances are that you won't like the rest.

As of 2/5/2016 'Stitches' is available on Netflix (US).

When Are Sequels And Trilogies Appropriate?

How annoying is it to wait for the third or final installment of a movie and find out that there is going to be a "part 2" you have to wait until the next year to see.  Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.  Let's look at a few examples.

Recently they've done this with The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and Twilight Breaking Dawn.  Is it necessary for them to do this?  What is the motivation for setting up a scenario wherein there is a part two to a sequel or trilogy?

Money and greed seem to be the first two answers coming to mind, especially with The Hunger Games franchise.  Not knowing anything about the story at the time, I was intrigued to read the books after watching the first movie. The final book was about the same length of the other books but not as good.  As a matter of fact, I felt like the author was rushed to finish the book. For how bad the book was, I couldn't believe that they would make the film adaptation a two-parter.  Part one was especially drawn out; one movie would have been better in this case in stead of two.

With a film series like Harry Potter, I'll have to go with the old saying that the books are better than the movie. That being said, there's so much detail in the books that they don't have time for in the movie unless the movie is over three or four hours long.  I think that the Deathly Hallows having two parts was acceptable because it had a good pace, they were hitting on critical points, and they didn't stray from the story.  The films didn't have everything from the book but it was enough to keep the viewer satisfied.

The new Hobbit movies royally pissed me off.  After reading the book as a kid and watching the cartoon movie adaptation, for them to make three movies out of this book is just ridiculous and greedy.  It was good going back to Middle-Earth and reliving the memories of our favorite characters from Lord Of The Rings, but there were so many parts in these movies that were long, drawn out, and boring. Boring to the point where I fell asleep multiple times during the second and third films. I could understand having two movies, but definitely not three.

Are there anymore movies out there that hve multiple sequels that are not necessary?

Do you think this trend will grow and be part of movies from now on?

Let us know what you think.

Emotions and Fictions: How Do I Give A Shit?

In an earlier article entitled "Siding With a Murderer: Confessions of An Immoralist, which can be found here: http://cliffsmovietalk.blogspot.com/2016/01/siding-with-murderer-confessions-of.html, I asked a question concerning my tendency to cheer or root for Jason, Freddy, or Michael of Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Halloween, respectively.  The question was: am I immoral, bad, wrong, evil etc. because I cheer for Jason to murder his victims even though Jason and his victims are fictional?  Built into this question, and the article as a whole, is an assumption, namely - that real people are in fact able to have real emotional reactions to fictional characters and fictional happenings.  So, the purpose of this follow-up article is to address that assumption and elaborate on it because it's an important piece of our experience when we watch movies, listen to songs, and/or read novels etc. that goes unnoticed and ignored.

If you have ever read a novel, poem, watched a movie, or heard a song and were moved emotionally

by it, then you have experienced what is commonly referred to as the fictional paradox.  The fictional paradox, to put it simply, is when a real person has a real emotional reaction to something that happens to a character, who is fictional or not real, in a movie, song, poem, novel, or painting etc..  This is called a paradox for one primary reason which can be stated as such: how and why is it possible for real people to have real emotional reactions to non-real characters in a fictional space?

If you have ever experienced this paradox, then you should be bothered by it because it should disturb your rationality a little bit.  Essentially what the paradox is implying is that every time you have an emotional reaction to a fictional movie character in a fictional space, your feelings are irrational.  However, I doubt that you would would accept that your real emotional reaction is irrational (I know I don't accept this).  My emotional reactions are real when I watch any SAW movie and the tortures that the characters endure gets under my skin.  I do not want to deny that those reactions are real.  I want to say that they are real and rational, but the paradox slaps me in the face and screams:

"No, your emotions are irrational, nobody is REALLY being tortured.  Those characters are NOT REAL."  Yet, I still want to argue that my emotional reaction is REAL despite my knowing that the characters are fictional and in a fictional space.  But how and why????

The 'how and why' pieces of puzzle are so crucial because without the 'how and why,' we basically have a huge gap in our understanding of the human condition; our condition.  I don't know about you but I am hostile to the notion that I am unable to explain a part of my own self.  In other words, since I have access to my own thoughts, feelings, emotions, and moods, then I should be able to explain why and how it is that I can have an emotional response to a scary movie, romantic comedy, poem, or novel.  However, this task seems to be endlessly complicated, yet we go on watching movies, reading poems and novels, listening to music without giving the paradox any considerations.  I find this part of the human condition dissatisfying, in that, we can be aware of something that needs explanation but because its hard we just ignore it.

So, the bottom-line is that the paradox lingers in and around us all the time and we ignore it. However, I challenge anybody to attempt to enter the ring and spar with the paradox and explain how and why we are able to have real emotional responses to fictional characters in a fictional space.  I am eager to hear thoughts and opinions on solving this paradoxical puzzle.

What Are Your "go to" Scary Movies?

Late one night, I found myself looking for a movie to watch.  It was between that time where you're sleepy, but not tired enough to go to sleep. I decided that I wanted to watch a good horror movie, which is very hard to find these days.

As I was going through my Netflix and Hulu account, nothing looked enticing. So, I went inside my memory warehouse (I got that from Stephen Kings 'Dreamcatcher', great movie by the way) and looked for my "go to" horror movies that creep me out when I watch them by myself.  You know what I'm talking about, the movies that make you paranoid enough to always look over your shoulder, or run up the steps to your room when you turn off all the lights, or when every little house noise turns into a life and death situation.  If a horror movie can do this to me, then I know it's good. Here are two movies (more to come) that consistently scare and creep me out no matter how many times I watch them.

1.Silent hill

This entire movie had weird all over it from the first time I watched it in theaters. The eerie music, dim environment, and the people that lived in Silent Hill, at least to me, could be based off a real town in backwoods USA somewhere. But the icing on the cake is the little girl who plays 3 different characters in the movie (two if you want to get technical). She was basically an innocent child that was bullied and tortured because her and her mother were the outcasts of the town. When she was burned alive (and lived), a witch or demon came to her and made a deal to make the people and the town itself suffer. Creepy!

2. Rob Zombie's Halloween

Rob Zombie did an excellent job with this movie, taking the Micheal Myers that everyone knows and giving him the perfect origin story. First of all, that kid who played Micheal just had a face that had serial killer written all over it. They showed his crappy home life, being picked on, and seeing him killing animals for the fun of it. Just watching a kid grow up with all those issues gives me some justification for accepting Micheal as a murderer. The adult Micheal was just a huge, strong, violent guy with no remorse. No matter how many times I watch this movie I cringe at the shear brute force of the way he kills someone.

What is your "go to" scary movie? What do you do when you get scared?

Movie Reviewers Need to Worry About Grammar, Here's Why...

My fellow movie reviewists: we are engaged in content warfare.  A battle for views, traffic, and acknowledgement.  Our weaponry consists of words, periods, commas, and the occasional semicolon (not to leave out the 'oh-so-important' parenthetical).  However, our weaponry is dull, gunky, and perpetually jamming because of poor grammar, punctuation, spelling, and other linguistic errors.  It is time to clean and sharpen our weaponry so we can continue fighting the good fight.

After spending about an hour and a half reading through various movie review blogs and comments, I have become skeptical that the individuals writing these blogs and comments are not equipped to do so, at least linguistically speaking.  This skepticism has prompted this post, which is directed at anybody, especially movie reviewists, who attempts to compare two things or rate one thing over another.  Enjoy.

In the movie review business, we are constantly comparing and contrasting two or more things and rating one thing over another.  So, having a strong grasp on the elements of language that allow us to accomplish these goals is crucial.  However, as I scroll through many movie review posts and blogs, both amateur and professional (believe it or not), I am constantly seeing the misuse of 'then' and 'than.'  Thus, I thought a post about the correct uses of both of these terms is warranted and hopefully movie reviewists, who are confused about when to use 'then' or 'than,' will stumble across it and correct their errors.  Obviously, this post is directed at English speaking people; however, I suppose someone who is a non-native English speaker and trying to improve their English could find this helpful as well.

The difference between the two is simply really.  The two most common instances when 'then' is used is when talking about temporal relationships between happenings or in conditional statements.  A couple of examples of the former are as follows:

1) I woke up this morning and then I ate breakfast.
2) Sally told her boss to screw himself and then she walked out.

A couple of the latter instances are as follows:
1) If I woke up this morning, then I ate breakfast.
2) If Sally walked out, then she told her boss to screw himself.

The use of the word 'than' is primarily used, at least in movie reviews, to indicate that the writer is contrasting two things, preferring, or rating, whether actually or hypothetically, one thing over another.  A few examples are as follows:

1) I like this movie better than  that one.
2) I would rather watch this television show or play this game etc. rather than watch any other show or play any other game.
3) Movie (X) has a higher rating on Rotten Tomatoes than on the IMDB; or
4) I would rate movie (X) higher than movie (Y).

If one can master these simple differences, then they are more likely than not to demonstrate to their readers that they have a strong grasp of the English language. This is a good thing because readers who have a keen eye for grammar foul-ups are likely to stumble through posts with multiple inaccuracies.  So, the writer risks that particular reader not returning to his/her website.  If one is okay with the consequences of the risks taken by faulty grammar, then simply disregard this post altogether.  However, my guess is that most writers want their readers to return.

Tucker and Dale vs. Evil - Review

Tucker and Dale vs. Evil is a horror/comedy that lives up to both genre labels, but is more heavy on the comedy than the horror. You're not going to be scared, but you are going to laugh.

The story is as follows: two backwoods country guys (Tucker and Dale) are taking a trip to fix up and renovate a vacation cabin that Tucker has just bought.  While Tucker and Dale are fixing up the cabin, they encounter some stereotypical dimwitted teenagers common to the horror genre.  Quickly, Tucker, Dale, and the teenagers find themselves in a situation wherein the line between who is good and evil is blurry at best.  Tucker and Dale think the teenagers are out to get them and at the same time the teenagers think the same about Tucker and Dale.  There's a kidnapping, people start dying in gruesome, but creative and  hilarious ways.  The movie basically rests on a HUGE misunderstanding due to a lack of communication.  

As I said at the beginning, this movie is classified as a horror/comedy.  However, the only thing about this movie that strikes me as being "horror" is that there is a lot blood, guts, gore, and death.  I suppose that could qualify as horror, but the story that is being told throughout the movie quickly dilutes any elements of "fear" or "scary-factor."  If you wanted to count the fear of dying as consistent with the "fear" representative of the horror genre, then this movie is within its classification.

I recommend this movie primarily because of the story and its hilarity, not necessarily because its scary in any meaningful sense.  There isn't great acting either; however, there are enough characters representing enough personalities that you get a little bit of everything in the way of character development, but don't expect anything deep.  So, if you like exaggerated gore and decent effects that are expected from a horror film and idiocy from characters and if you have an hour and a half to kill one day, then give this movie a shot.

It is currently available on Netflix as of 1/25/2016.