Lumberjack Man (2015)

Memorable, crazy movie

As Good As It Gets

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Very like what was said with 'Knucklebones', have an appreciation for black comedy and horror (and just as much when mixed together) and the concept was kind of interesting. So although expectations were far from high, considering the general standard of low budget films seen recently, part of me was hoping that 'Lumberjack Man' would be at least tolerable.There are definitely worse films than 'Lumberjack Man', of the horror genre and overall, and it is not even close to being one of the worst, let alone the worst, low budget films seen recently. That on the other hand doesn't make it good, it does far too little with the potential it had in the concept and it doesn't even have enough to make it tolerable. There is little engaging and it is cheesy as sin. 'Lumberjack Man's' least bad component was the music. There was something somewhat ominous about it and it does occasionally give a suspenseful touch. Sadly, that is pretty much the only praise to give. The pace very badly lumbers, which really makes the film dull, and it is not always easy to figure out what is going on because the story is just so thin and tonally weird.Regarding the villain, there is nothing surprising or sinister. Actually comes over more as silly and cheesy in behaviour and the goofy look. The lack of any atmosphere, let alone tension and suspense, is a hindrance as is the too long by half an hour length.As is the incredibly bad writing. Very stilted and induces too often some unintentional laughs. There were attempts at dark humour, but it was not dark or sharp enough and was instead silly and clumsy. Madsen's explanation is just ridiculous. Even worse is the acting, with beyond description terrible performances from the whole younger cast and it even makes Michael Madsen, clearly phoning in and either doing the film for money or as a favour, look bad. The characters are incredibly annoying and far from interesting, there is no development and the way they behave too often is stupid and illogical.The production values all round look cheap, especially the haphazard editing. The story has nothing engaging, suspenseful or scary, it's just far-fetched to an intelligence insulting degree, incredibly dull due to trying to stretch things out to pad the too long length and just too bland. Anything done to try and spice up the supposedly scary moments came over as overdone and gratuitous.Overall, very poor in almost every single area. 2/10 Bethany Cox

"Lumberjack Man" is a weird, boring stab at a horror comedy that is unsuccessful.Of course it's not in the least funny, but how many comedies are?The fact is that the comedic moments, if that's what they are, are handled so badly that they merely become confusing.It's not enough to throw in a joke here and there. There's also the matter of tone which allows a person to actually identify the joke and (maybe) laugh at it. "Lumberjack Man" has no tone. Nor does it really have a sense of place - the "summer camp" setting for both horror movies (Friday the 13th and its infinite number of rip-offs) and comedies (Meatballs, Happy Campers) for the filmmakers to have some idea of how to present it. But they don't. It feels like most of the action takes place a few miles from the camp anyway. This vague sense of place doesn't help.The movie is, of course, also not scary in the least; it doesn't even really try to be, which is not a problem because no one sees a slasher movie expecting scares. What is a problem is the villain. I don't know what they were going for, but it's one of the least memorable villains I've ever seen in a slasher. It's the typical massive stunt man (and being big does not equal scary) with a face like a block of wood.The explanation for the killer's presence and how to do away with it is, I guess, where the humour comes in. Michael Madsen gives a monologue, complete with an animated sequence, to provide an explanation so moronically bizarre and out of step with everything else in the movie that I couldn't bare to pay attention. It has something to do with pancakes and syrup?This is where the problem with the tone comes in: it's nowhere near ridiculous enough to absorb a sequence like this into the rest of the movie. It doesn't make you laugh at the ridiculousness: it makes you shake your head at the weirdness, and then, of course, you wonder what the filmmakers were thinking, or if they were. You start trying to formulate explanations for how the movie went so wrong.The ending, where this stupid origin story comes into play, is as badly done as you'd expect. I didn't know what was supposed to have happened, but I did know, with one hundred percent certainty, that it had no hope at all of ever being presented cinematically by the people who made this movie.The movie does have quite a bit of nudity (all breast shots). It does the typical thing of having multiple pretty, likable actresses, none of whom provide the above shots. And, weirdly, when the ladies do disrobe, the movie turns into a sexy music video with different music, lighting, dancing. Of course, this only distracts you.As for the "kills", one is fairly memorable: the camp manager is cut in half at the waist, and watches his lower body run away from him.

This is meant to be part of the After Dark's 8 films to die for Horrorfest. I am not fussy when it comes to horror, but their standards are REALLY sliding! This was badly acted, scripted, shot and in fact bad in every department. The comedy falls flat. The characters' stupidity is beyond reason! They are stereotyped, unlikeable brain-dead twits! They stand there while the killer prepares to kill them! The killer's only weakness is an allergy to pancake syrup?! I mean WHAT THE %3@&! Another gripe is the very long running time of 105 minutes. It should be cut down to 80 minutes. The content of this movie does not have enough for the excessive running time. This is not a B movie in a good way....This is a complete disaster! Michael Madsen appears to really need a paycheck for appearing in this one! My very first F in the usually high standard After Dark label. AVOID!!!!

Totally lame pile of BS with the lamest back-story for a horror movie slasher! Michael Madsen... boy, I just lost a lot of respect for you. You're way too good for this low-budget piece of crap!There are so many things that just don't make sense. Now, I get that it's a dark comedy. Okay. I can accept some things. But others, just... um... hmmm -Like the extremely hot ranger chick (who looked way too young to be Ranger Chief - or whatever the heck her title was) who fires what seems to be a Rambo-sized amount of bullets from a 9 mm automatic handgun without ever reloading. And then... she is the ONLY character to be struck by one of Lumberjack Man's axes who actually lives. Now, that's not such a stretch, it's possible to survive an ax attack. BUT, she took the ax in the back - right in the spine - and then pulls it out by herself and, somehow, doesn't bleed to death! AND THEN - at the end, she's up and walking around. Whoa - WHAT? That spinal cord had to be severed, no doubt! And wasn't it enough that we had the hot, lead chick come out alive in the end? Why did we have to save the hot, blonde ranger chick, too? That's just a bit too much BS for me.However, I did give this 2 stars for all of the (.)(.) running around on set! Good job, Mr. Director. But, I'm just a little bummed out that we never got to see the heroin in all her glory... but I'll settle for the panties and bra. Very nice touch.