Copperhead (2008)

Sorry, this movie sucks

Please don't spend money on this.

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

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.

Copperhead didn't strike me as a bad or unwatchable movie. It's just that it was too uneven for me to class it as good. The western bit is actually entertaining, with authentic attention to detail, some decent lines, a good rootin' tootin' score and moments of excitement in the action. However, the "mutated creature" part is nowhere near as promising, with artificial-looking and very un-scary snakes, dialogue that goes into clichéd and hackneyed territory and a predictable and illogical story. The characters are stereotypical and not always engaging, the corrupt sheriff was the best of the lot and I have seen variations of this sort of character many times. The acting is not bad though, Billy Drago is a lot of fun. Overall, uneven but could've been worse. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Wild west clichés meet monster movie clichés in Copperhead, a slightly amusing Sci-Fi Channel (eh...SyFy) horror western about a group of rowdy outlaws and other stereotypes who stop fighting long enough to battle a deadly stampede of venomous snakes.My biggest question about Copperhead: Why are the snakes doing what they're doing? This is so monumentally illogical that only the Sci-Fi Channel could cook it up, though I must admit that it is a bit refreshing that the writers didn't invent some crackpot explanation for the events in the film.As ludicrous as it all was, I thought it was okay and the characters were fun, especially Billy Drago, who's a great actor and should have had more screen time.

Just few facts. First: It's a movie with a prep of 4 weeks. It's shooting schedule is 20 days. 8 weeks for the edit. 2 mounts for the CGI work. Do the math. Time. Time. Time. The biggest problem of all. Don't get me wrong - Always can be better. Always. May be someone can do better in the same time frame. May be not. Second: As we all know period piece movies are kinda hard. All the costumes, props, sets, etc. Day and Night exteriors. I just think everyone did an extremely good job, for the amount of time they had. Third: I'm happy to read positive comments. That's how it should be. The people who are able to pull out a movie that looks like that don't deserve anything else. I really think some scenes and shots are great. There's a 2 and a half minute shot. Very nice duel on the street. Very nice photography in general. And then again -- Imagine what could be done with just a little bit more time.

In an attempt to meld together a western and a horror they have instead created a boring, childish, bit of fluff. The acting, camera work, and visuals are alright. The actors did a good job with what little they had to work with. But, nothing could fix the childish script. It amazes me that someone at a studio read this script and then gave permission to create this movie! What were they thinking? The script is slow, boring, contains way too much talk and too little action. I doubt this movie could keep the interest of even a ten year old more than a few minutes. It doesn't completely fail as a B or C western. But the addition of the snakes gives the movie a real schizophrenic character. If your looking for some thrills then click the channel and keep searching. You won't find what your looking for here.