Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki The title appears, barely legible, in blocks, on screen for nineteen slow seconds, before being smashed with the title object. We, the audience, are then seemingly beaten over the head with some of the poorest picture quality imaginable, even for shot-on-video flick, during the opening title sequence, while an imitation of the Phantasm theme is played.Obnoxious, amateur actors/ amateur porn stars gather in a farmhouse where, ten hyperbolic years earlier ( because nine years is never enough time, but eleven years is always too much time ) a double murder was committed. At one point, the filmmakers seemingly forgot they were doing a slasher film, and meander into a food fight, which lasts for nearly eight minutes, before setting up a seance, to contact the spirit of the killer from a decade earlier. " Some of you may have already heard what I'm about to tell you, " Mr. Polo Shirt informs us. We all have, because at this point, the filmmakers pad out the run time with a lengthy expositional flashback to the first scene from this very movie, in a Friday the 13th part 2- inspired bit, telling the audience what we already know. Two of these dip****s are later killed with a sledgehammer, which prompts another dip**** to ask​, " Any clues? " Perhaps the sledgehammer, and the dead bodies themselves, which they move, because they're all drunken morons? They remain in murder house overnight, basically waiting to be killed. The ghost/ killer/ whatever he is materialises/ crawls out of the woodwork, to off these nitwits one by one, and they kind of, sort of, fight for their lives. The cast:Chuck, seemingly cast for his muscular physique, and willingness to wear a polo shirt. Joni: completely forgettable. John: This guy just sucked. Mary: kind of pretty, but has the same awful 80s perm as Joni. Jimmy: looks likes he's killing time until the next Hall and Oates concert, or until he and Mary and Joni go have their hair permed at the same place. Carol: probably the best of an admittedly lousy cast, but with the same perm hairdo as the rest of them. Joey : I don't even remember this guy, but I'm sure he sucked. Lover: sucked. Mother: tolerable, but she and Jimmy and Mary and Joni look like they all have the same hairstylist, who only knows​how to do that same perm. The boy: was a lame villain. Killer: was he the killer? I thought it was the boy? The driver: why was he even here? But for all the grief and aggravation, I must admit I watched this film twice this month, before writing this review. It has some occasionally inspired camera-work, especially during the climax, among static shots of hallways. The music score is eerily effective, it reminded me a bit of German industrial band Einsturzende Neubauten, particularly their record, Zeichnungen des Patienten O. T. Plus, the added terror of a killer stalking his victims in their own home is a terrifying thought in and of itself. Gore fans should find enough in the ending to make it worthwhile, too. I'm not saying this is * good *, but there are worse movies out there, like Blood Massacre, for example. Without the opening and closing credits, this is only 74 minutes long. Without the use of slow motion, it might only be about 20 minutes long.

Scott LeBrun This all sounds so comfortingly familiar. A young boy (Justin Greer) is locked in a closet so his mom (Mary Mendez) - obviously no candidate for mother of the year - can get it on, in peace, with her lover (Michael Shanahan). Very shortly afterwards, the mom and the lover get it with the title weapon. Fast forward ten years later, and one of the most obnoxious groups of young adults that you'll ever see makes it to the very same house for some hard partying. After we're made to watch a great deal of their tomfoolery, our psycho killer makes their appearance, once again putting a sledgehammer to good use.An early credit for "Deadly Prey" director David A. Prior, this stars Davids' hunky brother Ted in the role of Chuck, one of these merry morons. The acting from Ted and all others concerned is exactly as amateurish as one would expect it to be, but that doesn't mean it isn't entertaining. John Eastman hams it up the most. Overall, "Sledgehammer" is nothing special, and it may not appeal to slasher fanatics across the board because one, there's no nudity, and two, it's really not that gory until the big finish. All of that said, it's reasonably enjoyable in typical bad movie fashion.The main problem is that David A. Prior goes out of his way to pad the running time. "Sledgehammer" only runs about 85 minutes, but several minutes easily could have been cut out without affecting the movie. Still, this may add to the appeal for some in the audience. The inane antics of our intended victims go on for quite a long time, so if one is not amused by these characters right off the bat, just imagine having to put up with them for over 40 minutes or so.The gore might not be that much, but it's fun in a predictably tacky way."Blood Cult" may get erroneously credited as the first shot on video regional horror flick, but this one predates it by a few years.Six out of 10.

Sandcooler Ted Prior was a Playgirl Playmate trying to get into acting, his brother David uhm, just owned a camera I guess, and so a fruitful collaboration started that has been going on for more than thirty years now. Their absolute masterpiece is probably 1987's "Deadly Prey", a complete and utter rip-off to "Rambo: First Blood" that is just irresistibly entertaining in all its wrongness. That one I can really recommend, but "Sledgehammer" is a whole other story. This thing is one of the most boring slasher films I have ever seen, it's clear the dynamic duo still had lots to learn when they made this. For example, David Prior hadn't figured out yet how to turn off the slo-mo effect on his camcorder. He uses slo-mo for the most random things. Some slo-mo in the grand finale, makes sense. Every single death scene in slow-motion, that's pushing it but fair enough. But why would you use it when the scene is just people walking around in a garden or sitting on a couch doing nothing? Is this young David Prior's creative force kicking in and not having a clue what it's doing? Not that the movie would be any good at a normal speed, but at least it would be lots shorter. Occasionally there is some almost-suspense (the clichéd slasher scene where one character tells the killer's legend isn't bad), the opening scene is also quite atmospheric, but as a whole "Sledgehammer" just doesn't bring much to the table to keep you entertained. It also doesn't help that you'll constantly have to yell "just get out of the house!" at the screen, my throat is still sore from yesterday. If this led the Priors on the road to "Deadly Prey" I appreciate it exists, but that's the nicest thing I can say about it.

cyco7410 I am a fond lover of the horrible straight to video shot on camera horror movies of the eighties but this one was just UNWATCHABLE. Well first it starts off with this mother locking her son in the closet so she and this guy can do the naughty but I guess as any normal person would the kid does not like this and comes out and kills his mother and his mothers "friend". Well over the next years a group moves in and...you can pretty much guess what happens later on....the son is somewhat older and kills the people off. The worst thing about this movie is that the director shows the same scene for a good 10 minutes and it gets just a tad bit boring. This is the same director that made the awesome "Killer Workout" so I cant call this movie a complete waste of time but I know for sure I won't take another hour or so to watch it again. This movie makes bad movies we love horrible. 3 out of 10