GL84 Agreeing to participate in a scavenger-hunt game for her college, a troubled woman learns that her and her friends are being targeted by a vicious maniac who may or may not be responsible for her past and try to figure out his connection to the game to save the others.This is an incredibly bland and uninteresting slasher, if it really could be called one as this one is just a rather dull and agonizingly slow thriller masquerading as a horror film. By making the kills all pop up in the last half-hour, that forces us into the boring game for the first hour, and it's not in the slightest bit interesting to watch as this one just tends to wander around to each of the contestants not doing anything to hold our interest, as there's no unfurling mystery to be found in the clues, they just so happen to get along with the game and overall it just comes off as weak, uninteresting and even misses several prime moments of excitement (messing up a couple screwing in the woods being the prime example) before it gets to a rather lame, bland finale that's imminently predictable and not in the least bit interesting. The kills are bloodier than expected (yet don't deviate from a brandished knife as the weapon) and the central premise has some legs, but this one just isn't worth it.Rated R: Graphic Violence and Graphic Language.

gavin6942 An agoraphobic freshman in New York City must join a scavenger hunt to save her boyfriend from a murderous game master.Right now (October 2012) this film is sitting on a rating of 3.2, which is among the lowest ratings possible (you rarely see anything under a 2.7). Can this film really be so bad? I mean, yeah, it is kind of bad, but not that bad.I actually liked the concept of a college scavenger hunt. The actual hunt did not start until 34 minutes into the film (the first half hour had mostly annoying character development of characters I had no interest in being developed). But, once it got going, it seemed cool and I really loved the scavenger map with the strings and pins.Ultimately, though, too little action and not enough reason for me to care.

charlytully There was an episode on "CSI--New York" during the past month with a very similar plot to RED HOOK. Despite having just an ad-shortened 38 minutes or so to work with, CSI-NY's Mac Taylor (Gary Sinise) and his crew got about five times as much accomplished entertainment-wise as the bumbling New York City police detective Lt. Tom Fox (Terrence Mann) and the rest of the RED HOOK cast managed to provide in 85 minutes. It's a sad commentary when an "unrated" feature film--where presumably anything goes--comes off as duller and less sexy than a prime-time network TV offering on a similar subject. While RED HOOK is billed as a horror flick, it's a sure fire bet to put the viewer to sleep more quickly than a CBS police procedural aimed as bed-time fare for the 60- to 90-year-old demographic. Gavin (Tate Ellington), the perverter of a lame Welcome Week scavenger hunt for the RED HOOK collegians, offs about half the campus, with less a sense of plausible threat than that created in just a few seconds of screen time by the twisted frat pledge master in the CSI episode, whose game playing is intended to kill no one. RED HOOK may spray a little crimson fake blood, but it offers little to hook the horror buff's attention.

Ben Larson This film takes a whole lot of time to get started. There is a lot of talking, and nothing else in the first hour.It isn't until the end that we see the slasher. Anyone looking for displays of flesh that is typical of slasher films in the past are going to be sorely disappointed. Despite numerous opportunities, the film is as chaste as a nunnery.Lots of blood and a predictable ending.The acting is pretty good throughout, so it will keep you interested enough to stay the course and find out who the killer is, if you haven't guessed before.