As with most movies I take chances on, I read the reviews and compare them to the numerical score. I'm a horror junkie, and with horror, there is such a wide swath of opinions that it can be difficult to know what you're getting prior to watching. Typically, anything rated under a 4.0 I pass on. Anything over 4.0 I'll consider it. In this case, I wish I hadn't considered it.
"Hands Of Hell" was really quite terrible. The good news is that it's nowhere near the worst movie I've watched. It is, however, circling the drain with a rapid swirl. The first red flag for me was the director, producer & writer also playing the lead. I'm 50 years old and have seen thousands & thousands of movies n' films, some of which were written & directed by the lead actor. I can count on one hand the number of movies that match this description which were what I would call "good" or "enjoyable." It just doesn't seem to work. And lemme tell ya... either does this one.
First and foremost, let me mention content, as it is something I look for when reading reviews.
Violence/Gore: there are a handful of kills in the movie, but there is ZERO gore, and very little blood. I noticed in the reviews that were in the 8.0-10 range the writers made sure to state that there is plenty of violence and loads of gore. It's obvious these folks know that viewers are looking for blood and gore but it's a shame they outright lie about the contents. The way the blood is used is also terrible. Every kill that occurs, blood instantly sprays back on the killer, no matter what the angle of attack is. So please note...VERY LITTLE VIOLENCE & NO GORE.
Nudity & Secual Situations.
There is no nudity to speak of. There are a couple of scenes where men remove shirts but there is no female nudity of any kind. That said, there are multiple scenes with women in bathing suits (bikinis to be exact). There are also a few scenes that portray a man & a woman BEGINNING to get intimate. Again, there is no female nudity- only bathing suits- nor is there anything more than men without shirts.
Drug/Alcohol Use: There are a couple of scenes that involve marijuana, but they pass very quickly. There are a handful of cigarettes smoked as well of a few beers and some wine, but nothing big.
Profanity/Frightening Scenes: Very little. There are a few curse words here and there but they are tame. Frightening? Hardly.
With regards to the film itself, the acting was pretty terrible. Like I noted above, however, it was not the worst of its kind, but it was pretty bad. None of the actors had any training in film acting and the delivery was really bad. It didn't help that the script was equally as terrible. It felt to me as if the writers attempted writing dialog as it would come out of the mouths of those speaking in normal conversation, but rehearsed. Awful delivery, wooden interactions, & no chemistry.
Directing and cinematography drove me nuts. Re: cinematography, I don't know what the heck they were trying to do, or if it was just my connection, but it felt like the camera was continually shifting between a modified slow my motion lwhich made it really difficult to watch.
Production: The production was among the the better aspects of the film, as the sets were existing buildings that were easily transformed in to viable buildings.
All in all, this is not worth the watch. Typically, I don't write Ill of films without vali reason, but I really don't appreciate reviewers who work on the film, or were affiliated with it in some way,, who then write and craft blatant lies about films and their content for the sole purpose of getting views.
That occurred with thuis.
"Hands Of Hell" was really quite terrible. The good news is that it's nowhere near the worst movie I've watched. It is, however, circling the drain with a rapid swirl. The first red flag for me was the director, producer & writer also playing the lead. I'm 50 years old and have seen thousands & thousands of movies n' films, some of which were written & directed by the lead actor. I can count on one hand the number of movies that match this description which were what I would call "good" or "enjoyable." It just doesn't seem to work. And lemme tell ya... either does this one.
First and foremost, let me mention content, as it is something I look for when reading reviews.
Violence/Gore: there are a handful of kills in the movie, but there is ZERO gore, and very little blood. I noticed in the reviews that were in the 8.0-10 range the writers made sure to state that there is plenty of violence and loads of gore. It's obvious these folks know that viewers are looking for blood and gore but it's a shame they outright lie about the contents. The way the blood is used is also terrible. Every kill that occurs, blood instantly sprays back on the killer, no matter what the angle of attack is. So please note...VERY LITTLE VIOLENCE & NO GORE.
Nudity & Secual Situations.
There is no nudity to speak of. There are a couple of scenes where men remove shirts but there is no female nudity of any kind. That said, there are multiple scenes with women in bathing suits (bikinis to be exact). There are also a few scenes that portray a man & a woman BEGINNING to get intimate. Again, there is no female nudity- only bathing suits- nor is there anything more than men without shirts.
Drug/Alcohol Use: There are a couple of scenes that involve marijuana, but they pass very quickly. There are a handful of cigarettes smoked as well of a few beers and some wine, but nothing big.
Profanity/Frightening Scenes: Very little. There are a few curse words here and there but they are tame. Frightening? Hardly.
With regards to the film itself, the acting was pretty terrible. Like I noted above, however, it was not the worst of its kind, but it was pretty bad. None of the actors had any training in film acting and the delivery was really bad. It didn't help that the script was equally as terrible. It felt to me as if the writers attempted writing dialog as it would come out of the mouths of those speaking in normal conversation, but rehearsed. Awful delivery, wooden interactions, & no chemistry.
Directing and cinematography drove me nuts. Re: cinematography, I don't know what the heck they were trying to do, or if it was just my connection, but it felt like the camera was continually shifting between a modified slow my motion lwhich made it really difficult to watch.
Production: The production was among the the better aspects of the film, as the sets were existing buildings that were easily transformed in to viable buildings.
All in all, this is not worth the watch. Typically, I don't write Ill of films without vali reason, but I really don't appreciate reviewers who work on the film, or were affiliated with it in some way,, who then write and craft blatant lies about films and their content for the sole purpose of getting views.
That occurred with thuis.