Hunters (III) (2016) User Reviews

Extremely unpleasant, but truth in advertising, at least...

[ssmith2010 · 4/10 · 24 July 2016]

"Hunters" is an extreme horror flick that begins with the disclaimer "The following film contains many scenes of extreme brutality and shocking acts of human depravity." This same sentence is on the DVD cover. I'll say this -- this is an accurate description of "Hunters." It is indeed filled with extreme brutality and shocking acts of human depravity. Unfortunately, that's about all the film is.

The film starts back in 1961. A guy driving along picks up a female hitchhiker. Since this is a horror film, we know that this is bad news for one of them, and in this case it's the guy, as the guy is stabbed and killed by the hitchhiker. For some unknown reason, he drove her back to his house, where his wife and baby are there. The hitchhiker headbutts his wife (a "blink and you'll miss her" cameo by scream- queen Mel Heflin) and steals the baby.

We then jump to 1987, where two brothers wearing masks are torturing a couple (we know they're brothers because they keep calling each other "brother"). After that, they attack a random family, kill the father, and kidnap the daughter and mother (played by Scream Queen classic Linnea Quigley, looking pretty good for being in her mid- fifties). Oh, also, at this time the guy from the first couple (who they apparently didn't kill) is now filming everything. And he is stark naked, with lots of full-frontal shots of this guy.

We then meet up with five twenty-something kids who are leaving to make some sort of movie. We think that now, we're going to follow these annoying kids, but no -- we see these kids randomly throughout the film for a minute or two, but the rest of the time is just the two brothers brutalizing, raping, and torturing people while filming it. The film then tries a "twist" that doesn't really make any sense, and it is really just an excuse to be even more nasty and brutal.

I've seen lots of extreme horror films, and there is a line between "disturbing" and "unpleasant." Unfortunately, in my opinion "Hunters" crosses that line. We don't really care about the victims, and the sadism is so extreme that it just becomes unpleasant to watch. And the filmmakers seem to be obsessed with dicks -- in addition to the aforementioned naked cameraman (who we see a lot of), we have two castrations (one is on a dead guy and for some reason, after he died his member swelled to a gigantic size) and a dildo that is approximately the size of a leg.

I can admire the fact that the filmmakers wanted to "go extreme" and they surely succeeded. But unfortunately, "Hunters" really ended up just a catalog of horrific scenes. I'm not saying to avoid it at all costs -- not at all, if you are into extreme horror then feel free to check it out for yourself. But if you're not sure, then I can't recommend it.

Beyond any type of horror flick you've ever seen

[randibee · 3/10 · 18 February 2017]

I'm a horror genre freak...so I think reviews for this genre should be done by its fans to give an unbiased opinion. Disclaimer at start of film warned us of extreme, disturbing images and they weren't joking. Pretty much non-stop torture, murder, rape, and gore galore. You definitely haven't seen any of this content in a horror flick before. Plot is non-existent and the female lead Linnea Quigley is a bad actress...despite being an 80s scream queen. Gotta say this one was too brutal for me to handle.

Argh, this is a terrible film

[targetlad72 · 3/10 · 7 February 2017]

Please don't be fooled like I was. Before downloading this film IMDb had rated this film 6.something, today it is 3.4. I am not surprised & it will serve me right for paying attention to too many'good' reviews.

To be honest I only could watch this one for 10 minutes. Bad acting and lazy camera work made this decision for me. I have no idea what the film was about so 'no spoilers' here. In conclusion, films both written and directed by the same person are real passion projects. They can either be very good or very bad. This one is the latter. Poor Adam Albrant, with this movie top of his CV he may not work in the industry again :(

Not a movie with a plot per se'

[lewis-sands · 1/10 · 6 February 2017]

Another of the many amateur made videos being flouted and touted as a horror movie by the producers etc in order to garner views. They get me all the time probably because i'm a horror fan like so many out there in on the "find a good one" search. The Bad guys trap, torture, and enslave the victims before forcing them to man the cameras to capture the blood and guts as they find and trap and torture and kill the next victims. Some of the bloody scenes are very gory and were hard to watch for me because i kept asking myself why? Why would they want to "pretend" like this and record it? This was not made in the Hollywood style, nor any style i can see other than the murder porno style which as made up as that sounds is all that comes to mind after watching some of this. Zero on a scale of 0-10 for me. Very bad and very unnecessary. I think i'll go wash now...

A New Sickfest

[shawnblackman · 5/10 · 6 February 2017]

A brutal film where two brothers throw on ski masks and proceed to shoot snuff movies. They target campers and anyone else they happen upon. A group of people making a film themselves head to the woods not knowing what's in store for them.

This was pretty disturbing so it won't be for everybody. They always find more depraved things for their victims to do for their film, each time more vile. Linnea Quigley had a role as a victim taken with her daughter. I thought it was odd for her to be in this as she usually doesn't do dark ones like this and she does have to do unconventional things. Ellie Church appears as another victim who I got to meet at Shock Stock one year.

It will freak you out and have you wincing in disgust that's for sure. The film is half found footage mixed with regular footage. It does have that grainy 8MM look giving it a real snuff look. They go all out on the gore making it realistic as possible. There is abundant nudity as well (Usually really bloody nudity). If you got a strong stomach check this one out. Not a very good family movie.

One man's treasure is another man's treasure.

[nogodnomasters · 4/10 · 5 August 2017]

A couple of guys in Jim Thorpe, Pa. go on a killing and rape rampage and film it. Another film crew gets caught up in the action. Some of it was simply snuff porn. There is better gore out there, this consisted of fake severed male organs and tons of fake blood. Couldn't manage any gut spillage. Hey just go down to the local butcher and get some pig innards. Nice to see Linnea Quigley getting used and degraded again. Her dancing took a serious step downward since "Auditions" or "The Return of the Living Dead," but I still love her. Too much of the film is one guy running around filming while showing us his junk. Film tried to be cute with Sphinx type riddles. For low budget cult addicts.

Guide: F-word. Rape. Nudity.

It's gritty and rough, too bad it's not good.

[HorrorFilmHellion · 3/10 · 23 July 2022]

The hunt for obscure independent horror will sometimes find a diamond in the rough. This was not one of them. A little false hope was brought on by Linnea Quigley and Ellie Church in cast credits. Something tells me they were duped into doing this one.. because it's kind of a no budget stinker. Is it gritty and explicit? Sure.. and most will find it a little much. For me, it just didn't work. It was painful to watch, but not in a "I have to look" good way. The switching back and forth between color and B&W was obnoxious, as was the fragmented "plot" technique. There was an opportunity to do this with style or elements that matched grit with some actual talent. It just didn't come together that way in my opinion. I appreciate the daring and unapologetic nature, but because of the way this was just sort of clipped together with (way overdone) home video simulation (which is really just an excuse for zero budget camera work), it just seemed like some experimental video project. The whole was not good enough for a few good scenes.

Sinister be thy name!

[glyptoteque · 9/10 · 16 September 2016]

Whereas The Cemetery was a bit of a letdown for me, I absolutely loved The Burnt House. What an exquisite piece of night that film was! From the first frame I was entranced by the filthy disharmony that was being vomited from the screen, every single frame voiced wrongness, the unholy atmosphere being conveyed in that film was what I consider the epitome of horror, a nightmarish sense of dread. Horror done the right way!

While Hunters is a different kind of beast, I am glad to say that I loved this as well. This time around it's centered around two brothers who find delight in the offing of man while at the same time filming their ravenous deeds. It has to be said, contrary to the warning stating that what you are about to see is ultra-violent, it's certainly not the most extreme film I've seen regarding acts of the unspeakable. It's most certainly a cruel and callous piece of work and the violence and murder on display is certainly up there on the extremity scale, but not to such a degree that it merits a warning.

That being said, I think the essential element here is the life-denying atmosphere, the darkness that hangs over every frame, and Ahlbrandt certainly is one director who has mastered the art of atmosphere, sadly a rather rare trait in this day and age of horror-poverty and popcorn-scares. Any idiot with a bit of cash and a working knowledge of how to make blood and prosthetic limbs can always gather a few friends, pick up a camera and make an "extreme" film, not that hard. Just look at the sorry state of horror these days. But to actually convey through the visual medium a truly horrific atmosphere, to leave an emotional impact, you have to have a vision, a vision obviously born of a profound insight into the darkness in our hearts. Hunters has my warmest recommendations! I wish the director good luck in the future, looking forward to his next piece of filth!