this film is VERY bad


it's not even 'funny' bad, just made badly.
if this is the new 'cult' material... it's just sad.
how much did they pay poor Rutger to play in this?
i could understand if at least it had a low rating... (5/10)



reply

I've always believed if you set out to intentionally set out to make a good film, you will very rarely succeed. If you set out to make a bad film, you will succeed every single time. Because making a bad film is simplicity, and requires no talent at all to do so.

People who actually set out to make a 'so bad it's bad' film usually do so because they aren't capable of making a good one.

And frankly, anyone who pays to see a film that is 'supposed to be bad' deserves to be disappointed. We are all familiar with the old saying about a fool and his money...




Never defend crap with "It's just a movie"
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds

reply

I agree, this film was pathetic. I liked both Grindhouse films and Machete but this was just awful. Very badly made. A story about a hobo with a shotgun could have triumphed in the hands of another director.

reply

It surpassed "Grindhouse" and "Machete" by miles. Unlike Rodriguez and Tarantino, Jason Eisner succeeded in replicating the style of the 70s/80s Grindhouse, if it was filmed on a dingy 16mm camera, with cheap film instead of digital, then it would have been a perfect emulation.

reply

It's simply Great

reply

i completely agree. i thought it would be more like "machete", which i thought was awesome. there was NOTHING funny about this movie -- just straight up brutality...i don't know, maybe it's an age thing. maybe i'm just too old now to find any humor in this. i had such i hopes!!! i guess the same people who though this movie was funny also probably enjoyed "the devil's rejects" - personally the worst movie i've ever sat through.

reply

I was born in the 60s (I don't like to think about my age more specifically than that, lol) and I thought it was often quite funny, which it achieved by being so over-the-top, campy, contrary to social and artistic norms, etc.

But I also loved The Devil's Rejects too, so



http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

reply

I've just seen it. One of the worst films I've ever seen. I can't believe Rutger Hauer, someone who was in a classic like 'Blade Runner' agreed to do this. It some how just squeezed a 3/10 from me.

"Time to find out..."

reply

I thought it was excellent! I dislike horror or anything with "real" gore (that tries to disgust you) but I love when a film uses gore to simply be like "here's a bunch of gore, isn't that excessive!?" These are films which are more about the visual experience rather than achieving viewer immersion (the goal of most films these days).

Fundamentally, this was a film which dared to be excessive and schlocky (not meant to be taken seriously) in a way that no North American film has done in years (but Japan still does all the time.)

I personally believe it's a good film, but one that definitely belongs in the "niche" category. It's easy to pick on this type of film however, because violent films are seen as lower than say, an indie film like "Half-Nelson".

For all those who liked this, I suggest checking out Director Jason Eisener's short film "Treevenge" which won Honourable Mention at Sundance and Audience Choice for Best Short Film at San Francisco's Fantasia Film Fest.

(Watch the whole thing here! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vaiv7kAXBzM )

reply

"I can't believe Rutger Hauer, someone who was in a classic like 'Blade Runner' agreed to do this." I quote.

I similarly find it hard to believe that last week I watched Rutger Hauer playing the artist Pieter Breughel in "The Mill and the Cross", a brilliant and novel film of eye-watering dimensions.
I suppose it shows his versatility, but one wonders why he accepted this role.

Furthermore, as others here have suggested, I'm not sure why I should assume the title "Hobo with a shotgun" is trying to warn me that I was in for a grand-guignol gore-fest. I expected violence, revenge and wrongs being righted; but I thought it might be anchored to a real world. All I got was a technicolour fairy-tale, like "Edward Scissorhands" but with much, much sharper blades. I will compare Harry Brown" starring Michael Caine.
This film essentially offered comic-book tedium beyond belief, aimed at teenagers who will believe the 'So bad, it's good' mantra and dare each other to watch it.
All this, despite Rutger Hauer's occasional attempt to inject some little elements of real pathos and human-scale acting. A waste of his time, methinks.

reply

Worst movie I have ever seen. No humor, overacted, underproduced, bad camera work, horrid colors, non-existent story, terrible dialogue and gore just for gore's sake.

There isn't a single positive thing to say, if you could give 0 stars I would.

reply

This movie is a tribute to the "bad" movies of the 60's and 70's. I loved it. It was awesome and fun and only fans of the Grindhouse/Drive-In genre will get it.

Great movie.

reply

An homage to something that is bad is nothing but an uncreative cop-out. A documentary about famous bad films would be more worthwhile. I have nothing against gore-soaked films, if such gore be justified by a plot-line, and is used to re-enforce some sort of message or moral. But when it rains down in torrents of tedium, one blood-splat relently following another, it's nothing but weak and pathetic pornographic violence; cartoon-like and totally unbelievable.
Teenagers make films like this, but not as art, or an homage to something or other. They do it because it's a laugh. That does not make for a good film. This is a bad film.

reply

And I suppose the movies it was homaging were works of art with inspired plots? Movies like "Cannibal Holocaust", "Ilsa: She Wolf of the SS" and "I Spit On Your Grave"?

reply

I'm glad to see that other people find this to be an unequivocal piece of crap. What bothered me the most was the cinematography...it looked nothing like any of the films it was paying homage to although the credits would have you believe that the "look" was of utmost importance to the filmmaker (e.g., the credit to Technicolor). There was WAY too much color saturation and this resulted in the movie looking nothing like the grindhouse revenge sleaze of the 70s and early 80s.

This could have been a decent film with the right people making it. I am fully convinced that Jason Eisener has no freakin' clue how to make a film and that he just happened to luck out on having a crazy premise that Rodriguez and Tarantino dug. I mean, this film isn't even on the level of the crap Ryan Nicholson puts out, but at least Nicholson has the excuse of having, at most, a tenth of the budget for each of the films he makes. In fact, a movie called Father's Day was released by Troma not too long ago and that film is way better than this one and it only had a $10,000 budget.

reply

RR and QT spent $57mil making "Grindhouse" and what did we get? A big budget FX bomb and a boring, slow-paced road/revenge movie, the only attempt to make it look cheap being the adding of all the "Film" scratches and crap, and even that's ruined when on the Blu-ray they include a pristine version of the film to go with it. JE had only $7mil, no CG, or big stunt work, the red-yellowish tint to the movie, the only big(ish, well notable, at least) name being Rutger Hauer. The opening credits scene in particular was perfect, it was more authentic to the grindhouse genre, then every moment in "Death Proof" or "Planet Terror" put together. All it needed was to be shot on cheap 16mm film, rather than digitally, then you'd be able to take it back in time and pass it off as a grindhouse movie of the era.

reply

Question to everyone who hated this film, have you ever seen an original Grindhouse film? Are you aware original grindhouse movies were known for being bad, campy, cheesy, poor/gory effects? That is what made them so great...

And Hobo with a Shot Gun creates the perfect grindhouse style. So before you bash this style of film, perhaps watch a few original original Grindhouse films.

Here is a small list:

Horror Movie Lovers:
Suspiria
Night of the Living Dead

Revenge Movies:
Thriller a Cruel Picture
I Spit On Your Grave (the original)
Coffy

Action/Western:
Django

So before you bash a movie see where its style originated from, and maybe then you can appreciate the movie.

reply

i thought the film was film was awesome, and to those who its supposed to be, supposed to be bad my ass. it look bad because they wanted it that way, it looks bad because it was a very low budget film, but its supposed to be over the top, which it is, so i was satisfied knowing this is what i wanted

reply

Try to understand what you're talking about before posting pointless *beep* on IMDB. Because right now you don't know a damn thing about anything.

reply

The Plague guys remind me of Power Ranger baddies.



I'm the grim reaper, Lardass, and you're my next customer.

reply

I have to say I did enjoy it. It wasn't anything revolutionary, but it did remind me of troma flicks and an 80s indie horror aesthetic. Is it a "great" film? No, but anyone that understands what they were shooting for I would hope get that this is a far more direct homage than "grindhouse" is, or intended to be.
The trailers were all inspired by grindhouse cinema, but of the actual movies that came of them, I would say that this most closely resembles one. Was that intentional? Who knows. All I can say is that it worked for me.

reply

Were those "cult" films mostly accident becoming? They were seriously made, for whatever reasons, they "fell apart" - "unpredictable" made them fun.
This HOBO movie is just not right; the director tried too hard: it made me feel like an audience sitting in Jerry Springer Show - when red light flashes, audience scream "Jerry, Jerry"; when green light flashes, audience scream "Whorre, Whorre".
Yeah, it is still fun, with a cue card.

reply