Pelt (2010) User Reviews

Lackluster backwoods horror fare that's undermined by despicable characters and generic plotting

[Woodyanders · 3/10 · 20 February 2015]

Stop me if you've already heard this one before: A group of friends trespass on private property so they can gain access to a hard to find nature trail. Naturally, they find themselves deep in the remote woods with a ferocious redneck killer (hulking Larry Laliberte) who doesn't take kindly to any strangers on his land.

While writer/director Richard Swindell delivers a few effectively wince-inducing moments of nasty and gruesome violence and deserves some praise for giving this film a strong and unwavering nihilistic streak, he alas crucially fails to offer a single remotely likable or sympathetic character; instead each and every last person present herein is so incredibly annoying and unappealing that one quite simply doesn't care if any of these insufferably obnoxious jerks lives or dies, which in turn completely negates any tension this picture needs to really work. Moreover, the hackneyed pain-by-the-numbers script not only suffers from an appalling excess of tin-eared profane dialogue, but also doesn't do anything fresh or inspired with the trite premise (for example, it's pretty obvious the token black guy isn't going to survive). And while the gals are hot, there's unfortunately no gratuitous female nudity to compensate for this picture's glaring weaknesses. On the plus side, Jeff Samuelson's sharp cinematography makes neat occasional use of dissolves and overhead camera angles and the capable cast do their best with the shoddy material. But overall this one sizes up as a real clunker.

Standard slasher film with standard beginning...

[dwpollar · 3/10 · 31 December 2021]

1st watched 12/30/2021 - 3 out of 10 (Dir-Richard Swindell): Standard slasher film with standard beginning where a bunch of young free-for-all's get drunk, high, and plan a hike and time to stay in the woods. And, of course, there are sexy women - who are pretty much out to do no good, and than become part of the hunted. Why these type of movies continue being made and financed is beyond me, but I digress. The hunter is a huge axe-wielding type that has a thing for peeling the skin off some of his victims(Aka. Pelt). Since the characters are standard slasher film fare we really don't care about them. They try to make you care with a couple scenes where the music gets sympathetic-like, but it doesn't work. There are a couple interesting escape areas like a Ranger's post and a close-by highway but unfortunately neither are really used to their advantage by the hunted. I really don't have much else to say about this other than to avoid it. The acting wasn't terrible for these films, and the direction was not anything unique or special - we've had stories with crazed axe-wielders so that wasn't unique either. Actors....please stop taking these jobs, and portray something people would care about.

Worth watching in a so bad its good way

[KingPretz · 2/10 · 13 March 2011]

If you like watching movies with a bunch of other people and mocking and laughing at an atrocious film, then "Pelt" is the movie for you! "Pelt" takes a cliché premise (young good looking people lost in the woods), adds in a list of no-names who ABSOLUTELY CANNOT act, who are forced to read some of the worst dialog ever written, and then films the whole thing on a store-bought camcorder. Actually, I would have guessed they filmed it on an iPhone, except there is some zooming in and out, so they must have actually sprung for a camera...

The actresses are attractive, and I was kind of surprised that there was almost no gratuitous nudity in "Pelt"... In a real movie, the presence or lack of nudity wouldn't affect my score, but in a cheap slasher film, I kind of expected it. The only nudity in the film was one of the chicks after she was dead, which of course is less of a turn-on...

Don't get me wrong, this is a 2/10 movie that you should watch, especially with a group of friends who are ready to poke a little fun and have a good laugh. It was actually one of the better "so bad its good" movies I have watched in some time.

I was extremely surprised when I came to IMDb after watching Pelt to see that its overall rating was an 8.6. Of course, only 19 people had voted to arrive at that score, so obviously, the cast and crew of the film had come here and cast votes. Once that number of reviews increases, the score of this movie will slide down into the 2-4 range it belongs in.

Horrible movie.

[darkangle-99 · 1/10 · 10 July 2011]

If I could give it a 0 out of 10 I would. How in the world it got a 4 star review on Netflix is beyond me. We let it play all the way through so we could give it the rating it really deserved. Wrong turn is far better. Poor story line, poor actors. The only good thing about it was the girls were pretty, and they guys looked decent. I cant even think up enough to say about the movie to fill the 10 line quota. BEER, BEER, BEER, seriously? Oh, I'm strapped to a table in my underwear, and your in a cage, but why are you wearing his shirt? Really, that's all your worried about right now? Or, "Shh, do you hear that?" "OMG you better not fart".. Horrible movie.

Only worth watching for Amber Bollinger

[dreamerlives · 13 July 2011]

It's a clichéd one star movie but I'll give it two because of Amber Bollinger. She's hot and runs around in her panties in the woods. Now for the bad. The characters are so annoying you want them all to die. The plot has been done a million times before (see "Wrong Turn" for one example.) My only hope is that the writer and director never make another movie again. In fact, they should be ashamed of themselves for not having an original thought in their collective imaginations. It's rare you get a chance to make a film, so why give the world a boring retread? On the other hand, Amber Bollinger needs to make many more movies. She reminds me of a young Bobbie Phillips. Unfortunately, her character in this film is so annoying that no one other than a few pervy fanboys will remember her.

Not worth the time, not even if it's unlimited (spoiler)

[veedubbin81 · 1/10 · 9 July 2011]

If there wasn't a killer in this movie I would have jumped through the TV and killed the idiot guys in this movie, killed the girl who got skinned first because she is a terrible everything.

I would have smacked the fine booty of the girl (amber bollinger) who did the no pants dancing.

She should be in more movies. Only one who could act. Horrible movie.

Just horrible. Oh yeah, and the biker guys were queer as folk.

And don't eat the lollipops.

yada yada yada

but really, this movie from square one is so bad.

Useless Killer Redneck Movie

[FilmFatale · 2/10 · 4 March 2013]

There are some decent "killer redneck" movies, and even some that are bad enough to be fun. However, I didn't find any reason for Pelt to exist. The first problem, as many have mentioned, is that the seven main characters (three crude hot chicks and four crude bros) are completely unlikable in their establishing scenes. They are rude and horrible to every single person that crosses their respective paths. Therefore, we don't care whether they live or die - we actively want to see all of them get taken out. Which brings me to my second problem with Pelt - we don't get to see them taken out. Most of the kills take place just out of camera range, so after taking the time to set these characters up as the worst people on earth and making us suffer through spending time with them, we are denied our money shots - heck, even a nice close up of the aftermaths would be better than nothing. Finally, I am told that Pelt is supposed to be a horror comedy but the big problem with that is it's not funny. It's terrible, and there are times you can't do anything but laugh at what's happening on the screen, but there's a difference between laughing at and laughing with. There's plenty of stupid behavior and bad dialogue, but the whole thing is so inept that it's hard to tell what's awful for laughs and what's just poor script/performance/direction. It also fails as parody because it doesn't seem to have enough understanding of the slasher subgenre to effectively spoof it. I did feel generous enough to give Pelt a 2 instead of a 1 solely because of how the most horrid female character dies and for the zip-up onesie rubber ducky pajamas one character wears through most of the movie. There are many movies out there worse than Pelt, but that doesn't make Pelt worth sitting through.

Do not watch this movie. If you do pray that your fast forward button works!

[Bababooe · 1/10 · 28 February 2018]

I got this movie in a 10 movies for $5 from amazon, "Pretty Dead" set. The first movie I watched was Pretty Dead, and it was ok, at least some decent ideas and I did not have to use the fast forward button. Playing the guitar also distracted me from falling asleep in the slow and boring sections. The second film I watched was actually decent, The Sacred.

I then watched Occupied, below the barrel garbage that should be avoided. If you don't believe me, then just put it on and see how long it takes for you to shut it off or just fast forward through this mess.

Ok, after watching 1 ok film Pretty Dead, 1 decent film, The Sacred, 1 complete garbage, Occupied, we have Pelt. Basically Pelt is a bunch of unlikable young people camping and getting killed by some red neck or something. So, the story is garbage. But what is worse is the dialogue, the acting, just garbage all the way. I had to fast forward most of this. But after watching Occupied, at least this movie had some decent kills and suspense. The only, ONLY redeeming quality of this film is I watched it after watching Occupied.

Do not watch this movie. This movie makes Friday the 13th a masterpiece, which it certainly is not.

As a film on its own, Rating is an F, 1 star. If you watch it after Occupied, rating is a D, or 3 stars. You may even give it a A, or 10 stars after Occupied.

Better than it holds itself out as being

[Larry-115 · 8/10 · 5 July 2011]

Pelt was a throwaway for me, a way to kill a few hours while doing something else, and I almost turned it off after the first five minutes, but I'm glad I stayed with it. Ultimately I put aside what I was doing and gave it my full attention.

Those who tuned out after the first five minutes can hardly be blamed. The movie tries very aggressively to make you dislike the characters in the opening sequences, which is inexplicable as the most effective and memorable horror movies set up the victims as real people so that you actually care about them (think "Audition"). Very bad move making the girls obnoxious cock teases and the boys frat-boy jerks -- I guess this was done to make you want to see them killed? To lighten up the savaging to come? Definitely a misstep, as the movie has lots of work to do to overcome that initial distaste -- it really opens like a revenge of the nerds type scenario, except without the nerds, only with the arrogant popular and beautiful snots.

But I hung with it and it quickly evolved into a tight little stalker flick, the characters shedding their one dimensional arrogance and actually assuming fairly human traits -- surprisingly human in fact. Of course the conceit of the plot is nothing new -- the stalkers are your typical back woods stalkers, and they are even doing what hick serial killers seem to most aspire to, but that doesn't really matter.

What matters most in a movie like this is watching a person or a small group be hunted and trying to deal with that situation, trying to survive. This movie does that remarkably well, and once the action begins will keep you engaged and interested, with more than the normal share of jolts.

I wouldn't be reluctant to suggest that you just skip the first 15 minutes of the movie altogether, as it's aggressively loathsome, and I suspect that's the reason that the movie has such a terrible rating. It might be a 3 for the first 15 minutes but it quickly becomes an 8 once the action starts.

Vacuous young people + Remote area + Lunatic.

[Someguysomwhere · 6/10 · 23 April 2011]

Does my summary sound familiar? It should, since this is the basis for many horror films we've seen; some of this ilk better than others. I'm happy to report that this is one of the better ones. You'll get lot's of smiles, a few chuckles, and maybe one or two out right laughs. Add to that an utterance or two of "gross", a surprise ending, and you're good to go. Note: Best viewed by leaving your thinking cap at home (as if you didn't know).

Seven young people set out on some quest to a site located in some out-of-the-way place in the wilderness somewhere via a rarely used route (Don't ever do that folks). The seven are: Three cute cockteasers whose only talent, I'm guessing, is skillfully applying make-up and locating items on sale at clothing stores to cocktease in. As for the four young men, I have names for them which should be indicative enough. I call one "Beer" (likes to say the word and never seems completely sober). Another I call "Screwloose". Here's a sampling: In the movie this guy pours beer on the seat of a chair freshly vacated by one of the afore mentioned cuties and laps it up. Then there's "Farts". Need I say more? I don't think so; --but I will. After he does his thing he uses his hands to waft it your way (Just the messenger folks, don't hate me). Then there's, well, "The Black Guy". I call him that because he's the most normal of the guys and so nothing much distinguishes him but that. Although I will say that when you see what this guy sleeps in you may well deduce that he has issues himself, only not as obvious as the others.

Having left their vehicles behind at a certain point in their journey, the young people don back-packs and begin their hike thru the woods. Screwloose finds a "No Trespassing" sign but hides it from the others with the help of The Black Guy. Eventually they set up camp and later one couple get it into their heads to go off into the night somewhere to make out (All I can say here is that in these type of movies it must be nature's way of weeding out the stupid; cruel but effective).

I think of this movie as a comedy-horror since REAL injury and distress is coupled with the silly banter, utterances and antics of the young people. The movie is called Pelt because there is a very sick freak out there with a thing for butchering and human skin. That I liked this movie surprised the hell out of me!! I always have low expectations when going to see these type of films. Possibly you too, I don't know. Anyway I think you'll like it. Nice mix of humor and violence. Love, Boloxxxi.

Oh, the Horror... Not

[tmccull52 · 26 February 2013]

As per the requirements of this site, I will tell you now that this review contains spoilers. If you wish to watch this movie, read no further.

Now that we've the necessary disclaimer established, here was have yet another in a seemingly endless line of horror movies where all of the characters die. In the epic poem by Dante, he is counseled, while at the gates of Hell, to "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here". If you're going to watch this movie, you may wish to consider that same advice.

At the beginning, the characters are so shallow and cliché that you want them to all die, and most horribly. But as the movie progresses, some of them do exhibit at least a modicum of decency. They're still not particularly likable, but you do at least begin to pity them their plight.

The plot isn't particularly imaginative; there's nothing here that you likely haven't seen before. People go into the wilderness to party hearty. You have your requisite sex scene, although there is surprisingly little nudity in the movie. You've got your typical druggie skank, and so on and so on. It was rather interesting that the killer wasn't some hideously disfigured superhuman juggernaut. He's just some redneck living out in the woods who likes to skin people. Oh, he does like to stuff the skins with some other substance and then have sex with them. I haven't seen that one very often before.

As I said before, there's not a whole lot new here. This is just another in an increasingly long line of movies and titles where everyone in the movie dies. There's no hope for survival however hard they fight or struggle. Sometimes, that does make for an interesting movie, but now it's so overused that it's a boring plot device. At least in this movie, when the killer dies, he doesn't spring to his feet miraculously at the end, prepared to wreak havoc in the sequel.

Better than expected

[cookieconconcon · 8/10 · 3 April 2011]

Me and some buddies got together and rented some DVDs for a cheesy horror film weekend. Out of all of them this one was the only one that was better than we expected. We picked this movie based solely on the cover and we did not expect it to have comedy. It's not the scariest horror film but, the subtle humor made it a lot of fun and we all laughed out loud several time.

It's not the most original story but when you add the humor its one of the better of the "kids go missing in the woods" genre. Although the situations were kinda extreme, the actors made it all believable.

My girlfriend, who doesn't normally like horror movies, watched it and like it. I ended up showing it to another friend of mine and watching it again before I returned it. I would recommend it to anyone who like a little comedy with their horror.

This is a classic film to have great laughs with friends....

[avo4077 · 6/10 · 27 July 2015]

The B-horror movie seems to be going away. Long gone are the days of picking up a couple of "scary" movies from your local video store, buying some beer and inviting friends over to pick the movie apart. Today's B-horror either tries to be B-horror(thus losing the charm) or is so terrible and boring that there is nothing to make fun of. This film is the best laugh I have had in a while. It is just interesting enough to keep you keep watching and although I feel it does make fun of itself purposely on a couple of occasions, it is just serious enough to get the laughs going. For a B-movie to be funny, the golden rule is that the audience feels that the director has a masterpiece on his hands. No spoilers here: but the best laughs come from the bar scene in the beginning of the movie(particularly the "John" character), then later a female who keeps having a pain and describes it in detail, a certain character's sleeping apparel, the best stereotype of a yuppie jock in horror movie history(seriously) and the flying ax. That is just to name a few. Invite friends over, pour some refreshments and enjoy. This is as good as it gets for horror fun at the film's expense.

Serious miscalculations ruins potentially strong film...

[stsinger · 12 July 2011]

"Pelts" was a typical "hot twenty-somethings go into the woods and bad things happens" film. It was decently-made and could have been effective.

HOWEVER... the filmmakers made a huge miscalculation. During the 30 minutes of "character development," they made the protagonists -- three girls and four guys -- among the most revolting group of assholes I have ever seen on film. I am not kidding here, guys, it's one thing to make characters so revolting that you're rooting for the bad guys to kill them. Usually, that's because they're just annoying and we "know we're in a movie." But when you put characters out there that are so mean and sickening that you are rooting for the people they interact with to BECOME killers and kill them, you've done something special.

If they re-shot the first half hour and made the group more likable, this would be a FAR better film. But alas, we are left with that we have.

Also, to paraphrase the late Gene Siskel, "In a film like this, we deserve some nudity." The girls are hot, but remain fully clothed. And just to sort of "rub it in," the hottest girl -- Amber Bollinger -- does have a nice tank top on, but half-way through the film covers that tank top with a large bulky shirt which she wears for the rest of the movie.

Sheesh.

Great movie for the genre

[KentaroK · 8/10 · 27 November 2011]

Well, this movie was actually a lot more fun that I expected. For the genre (campy horror), it was really good.

From start to finish, it entertain me how over-acted the characters were. They were very consistent, and helped to keep my interest.

Without revealing too much of the plot, there is a lot of subtle humor in the movie.

Less subtle is the sex, which is not so much explicit as explicitly talked about... as usual with horrors, there is more pain than pleasure, though, so I can't say this is a "porn with blood" as some movies are.

Overall, if you like campy horror, you will love this movie.

However, if you want great acting, or something new, just look elsewhere.

Are you sure about this trip?

[michaelRokeefe · 6/10 · 22 July 2011]

Maybe a little better than expected, but all the same this story is so predictable and not exactly original. The story is about a group of twenty-something friends (obviously played by actors thirty-something)taking a hiking trip in deep woods of Caveland, Kentucky. The hikers are warned by locals not to dare trespass on private property. This group is made up of party people, not nature lovers...not hikers for that matter. Gulp down some beers, take a toke or two and have some secluded sex; all interrupted by a crazed lumberjack. Let the gore, splatter, slice and dice begin. Fools that they are to leave civilization; there is no trip back home. Castmembers: Ashley Watkins, Travis Goodman, Sarah Zurell, Ryan Boone, Amber Bollinger, Justin Welborn and Larry Lallberte.

Completely and utterly okay.

[shorty519 · 6 September 2011]

The filming was meh. The casting meh. The acting meh. Special effects meh. Overall the film was just that so, so. I do give it an A for effort though trying to be more than just a horror film full of hot teeny boppers with no brains. It has multiple attempts at some emotional moments, but then it goes back to the same old being chased here and there, but I do commend the effort. I'd say it gets a 3 at best, and thats because I round up. Most of that number is because of a brief moment between two characters that as I stated previous was at least an attempt to make this movie more than just ANOTHER horror movie. The acting and casting wasn't all bad, and Amber Bollinger is ridiculously attractive, like can't look away hott. Also something else I really appreciate is that there are no boobs, I mean I love boobs as much as the next guy, but anymore they have become their own character in horror films nowadays. They need to start calling them Whorror films really. But anyways that was a breath of fresh air to be honest.

Overall this is a netflix movie, that's where is currently resides, and rightfully so. It is mediocre in all aspects, leaves you with way to many questions like: Where did that person go for so long? What is the killer's motive? and so on. These are just a few examples of what i was left wondering.

NOT REALLY RECOMMENDED (Late night netflix movie to be played in the background.)

My Review Of "Pelt" 2010

[ASouthernHorrorFan · 8/10 · 19 August 2014]

2010's "Pelt" has a group of friends fighting for their lives against a couple of local yokels with a taste for blood and torture. Unfortunately for this crew they chose to spend a weekend in the woods on private property. The choice is a fatal error for the friends. A typical scenario found in modern horror but it all works.

The story is a fun, modern nightmare that puts fuel into the "camping/in the woods" horror film. I really didn't expect a lot from "Pelt" but was pleasantly surprised. Swindell creates a very suspenseful chiller that plays with elements of slasher, grindhouse and splatter horror. The cast commit to their characters and pull off some pretty authentic personalities that I connected with. "Pelt" does find itself battling through some pretty standard clichés, but never gets marred down completely by the stereotypes. Even with a few of the characters coming off a bit abrasive, (douche-bag daddy-o's) , the actors give convincing performances that does take the characters into caricature territory.

The special effects are strong, realistic grue that explores elements of exploitation, and splatter without pushing the kill scenes into sensationalized depravity. There is a nice balance between the horror elements and the psychological suspense that makes "Pelt" a very strong horror film. The soundtrack and sound effects create a tense, thrilling atmosphere that carries the story arch from the first scene until the credits roll. Honestly I went into this film expecting to be disappointed or bored, but instead I was captivated and chilled. "Pelt" is a film that I will be watching over and over.

There is some downer moments to "Pelt". The dialog is weak in some scenes, with characters feeling forced into conversation with one another, instead of seeming natural. It does ad a bit of a hokey vibe that disrupts the intensity and drama of the story. Honestly that is really the only hiccups I had while watching "Pelt". The kills are bloody, there is screaming and crying, running through the woods. Brutality is the theme de jour for "Pelt" with some truly nightmarish moments. I will be referencing this film the next time I decide to explore the hills and back roads in my neck of the woods-believe that!

Effective low-budget take on the basic "Wrong Turn" plot

[Wuchakk · 7/10 · 4 August 2016]

RELEASED IN 2010 and written/directed by Richard Swindell, "Pelt" chronicles the misadventures of seven obnoxious youths in Kentucky when they embark on a backpacking hike deep in the unknown woods and evidently tick off some inbred whack job.

Considering that "Pelt" is a micro-budget movie compared to 2003' "Wrong Turn," I was impressed with how well-made it is. Sure, several of the youths are mostly annoying at first, but it's so exaggerated it's obviously camp; plus their arses are all humbled in good time, BIG TIME. Moreover, the three girls are appealing in a girl-next-door type of way despite their initial obnoxiousness, particularly Amber Marie Bollinger as Jessica and Ashley Watkins as Jenny (while blonde Sarah Zurell ain't nothing to sneeze at). The Irish bloke is easily the most irksome male, but he's willing to boldly sacrifice everything to save one of the girls. That's not just likable, but noble and heroic!

Needless to say, unlike "Wrong Turn," the movie mixes-in comedy and parody reminiscent of 2007's "Wrong Turn 2: Dead End," but some people apparently didn't get the memo. In any case, while nothing great, "Pelt" is worth catching if you like backwoods slasher flicks. I actually like it better than "Wrong Turn" (it has far better women) and it's close to being on par with "Wrong Turn 2." Not to mention, Amber Marie Bollinger (Jessica) scampering around the woods in flimsy attire is worth the price of admission.

THE MOVIE RUNS 87 minutes and was shot in Northern California, which is a weak stand-in for Kentucky because anyone who's been to Kentucky knows it doesn't look like Northern California.

GRADE: B

Worth viewing for the chicks...

[george-841 · 16 July 2011]

OK, it's a classic of the genre meaning the plot is lame and the whole film revolves around T&A and horror/suspense. The T&A isn't bad and while I agree with the above reviewers that Bollinger is cute all 3 of the girls are well worth watching. Enough that I looked them all up to see what other films they've done.

The girl-on-girl necking scene, even if the two are faking it for the benefit of the hick gas jockey, alone is worth watching the movie---at least to about the 25min mark, where it takes place!

This movie has one twist you don't see too often in slasher horror movies (BIG SPOILER WARNING HERE SO Don't READ BELOW IF SPOILERS BOTHER YOU...)

NONE OF THE VICTIMS SURVIVE! Most slasher movies at least one lives, usually the most "innocent" of the girls.

Fun Film

[the_descent · 10/10 · 16 January 2015]

I enjoyed this film. Yes it is similar to many other horror films of this type but still different enough to make it worth watching. Ashley Watkins and the other actors look like they had fun making this film. And that is what films like this are about having fun! Ashley Watkins is very talented actress and she played the role of Jennifer perfectly. All the ladies in this film are beautiful and talented as are all the men. This film has horror,comedy and sex all of which make this film fun to watch. The locations in this film are beautiful. Some things in this film remind Me of Wrong Turn,Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Wolf Creek. But that makes it fun when you see things that remind you of other films you like. This film is worth a look.

I would love to be a monkey man

[nogodnomasters · 6/10 · 18 January 2018]

The film opens with three rude, crude tank top cuties calling a bikers names. Some young men join them as they hurry off to a private trail to hike on for some reason or another. Then the title of the film plays a spoiler as they meet a non-introduced character who collects human pelts.

I liked the girls who I thought were going to lose their tops at any moment. The language was crude and rude but fitting for the film and was perhaps the high spot. The killings were not graphic. It looks like someone broke a realistic looking blow up doll and decided to call it a pelt, make a movie about it so they could get another one.

The pajamas was a nice touch.

Parental guide: F-bomb. Brief sex. Fake corpse nudity.