Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

ShangLuda Admirable film.

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Wuchak RELEASED IN 2010 and written/directed by Richard Swindell, "Pelt" chronicles the misadventures of seven obnoxious youths in Kentucky when they embark on a backpacking hike deep in the unknown woods and evidently tick off some inbred whack job.Considering that "Pelt" is a micro-budget movie compared to 2003' "Wrong Turn," I was impressed with how well-made it is. Sure, several of the youths are mostly annoying at first, but it's so exaggerated it's obviously camp; plus their arses are all humbled in good time, BIG TIME. Moreover, the three girls are appealing in a girl-next-door type of way despite their initial obnoxiousness, particularly Amber Marie Bollinger as Jessica and Ashley Watkins as Jenny (while blonde Sarah Zurell ain't nothing to sneeze at). The Irish bloke is easily the most irksome male, but he's willing to boldly sacrifice everything to save one of the girls. That's not just likable, but noble and heroic!Needless to say, unlike "Wrong Turn," the movie mixes-in comedy and parody reminiscent of 2007's "Wrong Turn 2: Dead End," but some people apparently didn't get the memo. In any case, while nothing great, "Pelt" is worth catching if you like backwoods slasher flicks. I actually like it better than "Wrong Turn" (it has far better women) and it's close to being on par with "Wrong Turn 2." Not to mention, Amber Marie Bollinger (Jessica) scampering around the woods in flimsy attire is worth the price of admission.THE MOVIE RUNS 87 minutes and was shot in Northern California, which is a weak stand-in for Kentucky because anyone who's been to Kentucky knows it doesn't look like Northern California.GRADE: B

avo4077 The B-horror movie seems to be going away. Long gone are the days of picking up a couple of "scary" movies from your local video store, buying some beer and inviting friends over to pick the movie apart. Today's B-horror either tries to be B-horror(thus losing the charm) or is so terrible and boring that there is nothing to make fun of. This film is the best laugh I have had in a while. It is just interesting enough to keep you keep watching and although I feel it does make fun of itself purposely on a couple of occasions, it is just serious enough to get the laughs going. For a B-movie to be funny, the golden rule is that the audience feels that the director has a masterpiece on his hands. No spoilers here: but the best laughs come from the bar scene in the beginning of the movie(particularly the "John" character), then later a female who keeps having a pain and describes it in detail, a certain character's sleeping apparel, the best stereotype of a yuppie jock in horror movie history(seriously) and the flying ax. That is just to name a few. Invite friends over, pour some refreshments and enjoy. This is as good as it gets for horror fun at the film's expense.

george-841 OK, it's a classic of the genre meaning the plot is lame and the whole film revolves around T&A and horror/suspense. The T&A isn't bad and while I agree with the above reviewers that Bollinger is cute all 3 of the girls are well worth watching. Enough that I looked them all up to see what other films they've done.The girl-on-girl necking scene, even if the two are faking it for the benefit of the hick gas jockey, alone is worth watching the movie---at least to about the 25min mark, where it takes place! This movie has one twist you don't see too often in slasher horror movies (BIG SPOILER WARNING HERE SO Don't READ BELOW IF SPOILERS BOTHER YOU...)NONE OF THE VICTIMS SURVIVE! Most slasher movies at least one lives, usually the most "innocent" of the girls.

Larry-115 Pelt was a throwaway for me, a way to kill a few hours while doing something else, and I almost turned it off after the first five minutes, but I'm glad I stayed with it. Ultimately I put aside what I was doing and gave it my full attention.Those who tuned out after the first five minutes can hardly be blamed. The movie tries very aggressively to make you dislike the characters in the opening sequences, which is inexplicable as the most effective and memorable horror movies set up the victims as real people so that you actually care about them (think "Audition"). Very bad move making the girls obnoxious cock teases and the boys frat-boy jerks -- I guess this was done to make you want to see them killed? To lighten up the savaging to come? Definitely a misstep, as the movie has lots of work to do to overcome that initial distaste -- it really opens like a revenge of the nerds type scenario, except without the nerds, only with the arrogant popular and beautiful snots.But I hung with it and it quickly evolved into a tight little stalker flick, the characters shedding their one dimensional arrogance and actually assuming fairly human traits -- surprisingly human in fact. Of course the conceit of the plot is nothing new -- the stalkers are your typical back woods stalkers, and they are even doing what hick serial killers seem to most aspire to, but that doesn't really matter.What matters most in a movie like this is watching a person or a small group be hunted and trying to deal with that situation, trying to survive. This movie does that remarkably well, and once the action begins will keep you engaged and interested, with more than the normal share of jolts.I wouldn't be reluctant to suggest that you just skip the first 15 minutes of the movie altogether, as it's aggressively loathsome, and I suspect that's the reason that the movie has such a terrible rating. It might be a 3 for the first 15 minutes but it quickly becomes an 8 once the action starts.