Woodyanders This movie suffers from an obvious identity problem. Sometimes it tries to be funny and succeeds in being reasonably amusing in a cheerfully lowbrow sort of way. But more often it attempts to be a serious and straightforward slice'n'dice item that just doesn't work because of a plodding pace, uneven tone, extremely variable acting, and tacky gore. Director Carlos Scott, working from a sloppy script by Robert Paul Medrano, crucially fails to build any much needed tension or creepy atmosphere. The cast struggle gamely with the poor material: Jessica Kinney as the troubled Jenna and Ross Kelly as Jenna's sweet fiancé Alex make for appealing leads, Billy Garberina is a raunchy hoot as Alex's rowdy best buddy Tully, and Richard Lynch greatly enlivens the few scenes he's in as Jenna's evil and sinister father. It doesn't help that Jenna's crazed inbred hillbilly family are a bunch of severely underdeveloped one-note redneck stereotypes. Richard Griffin's pedestrian cinematography and Karl Hittorf's generic shivery score are both also below par. 90's direct-to-video movie starlet Maria Ford is sadly wasted in a minor part as a ditsy hick chick. Hell, not even a decent smattering of gratuitous female nudity can alleviate the general tedium of this draggy and uneventful dud. A real clinker.

innocuous I've read on IMDb and some other sites that this movie was originally intended to be more of a comedy, but that portions were re-shot and it was edited to be more of a slasher film. I don't know if that's true, but I will say that the best portions of this film are those left over from the "comedy" version. Some of the exposition and conversations are quite (intentionally) funny. I especially like the explanation of why the groom's parents, sister, and grandmother all hate the best man. Low-key, but classic.Other than the funny moments, there's not much here. The gore is pretty amateurish, though plentiful. The plot makes no sense. And the scenes seem to switch back and forth between different sides of the same house, which is used as a remote cabin, a church, a fellowship hall, a school, and a couple different homes. It's cheerfully cheesy.Worth seeing if you don't have anything else available, but don't put it on your preferred list.

pchibbard I never write in these user boards because what I feel is usually summed up by other members or critics so there is little relevatory info to give but this movie was one of the greatest gaps between expectations and results I have ever had.THis movie had three bad things going for it. A) it was direct to DVD horror film. B) it was named after a play on words from a major motion picture which is never a good sign. and C) it looks like it was shot on a home video camera that has been dropped.BUT it works because it does not take itself seriously and is really funny. You can tell the guys behind this film have a great sense of humor. They also drop references to films that lead to a debate about the sex of a ape named Coco. They really had a good time making this and you will have an equally good time watching it. Do yourself a favor and rent this.

iamcarter05 I like some horror movies and I'm used to the movies I see in theaters. This is for sure a very low budget movie. My girlfriend had the DVD and told me to lower my expectations and that I would have to meet the movie halfway. And I did. And I would have to say the movie is definitely halfway good. There's not much romance. There's not much of a wedding at all. Everyone is killed before they even get inside the chapel. But I must say that their are some hilarious lines and good scene. I can't say I found it scary, but I wanted to know how it was all going to end. I probably should have had more to drink and I would give it 6 stars, not 5.