Manhunt
Manhunt
| 04 January 2008 (USA)
Manhunt Trailers

Its the summer of 1974. Four friends have planned a recreational weekend hiking and camping in the forest. At a remote truck stop they pick up an anxious hitchhiker who only after a short ride demands they stop the vehicle. She is clearly frightened of somethingbut what she cant begin to describe in her carsick terror. Suddenly the group are ambushed and left unconscious.

Reviews
Harockerce What a beautiful movie!
Grimerlana Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike
Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.
ThrillMessage There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.
BA_Harrison The backwoods/survivalist horror genre is one of my favourites, but the films do have a tendency to follow the same formula, Manhunt being no exception. A typical example of 'doing things by the book', it starts in time-honoured fashion with four friends travelling through the wilderness in their VW camper-van (the film is set in 1974, a tribute to that classic of the genre, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre perhaps). After the predictable run in with hostile locals at a roadside diner, they do the expected thing by picking up a scared hitch-hiker, inadvisably stop in the middle of nowhere, and, in yet another retelling of The Most Dangerous Game, fall prey to a group of hunters who prefer killing humans to animals.Despite all of the familiar trappings, this sort of thing can work very well just so long as there are regular thrills and inventive bloody kills, the protagonists are likable, and they don't behave like absolute idiots; Manhunt is suitably vicious in tone and features some reasonable splatter (although it's not as creatively bloody as I would have liked), but sadly its young victims aren't very appealing and act like morons. They constantly bicker with each other, stupidly insult the locals, and repeatedly make ill-advised decisions that only worsen their already dire situation. In short, I couldn't care less if they survived or ended up as trophies lashed to the bonnet of a Norwegian maniac's Landrover.
Coventry This has got to be one of the most rudimentary plotted and primitively accomplished horror movies of the (still relatively young) new Millennium, but personally I appreciated it a lot more than the vast majority of hi-tech computerized and wannabe trendy & intellectual flicks nowadays. And yes, I do realize I sound like an embittered old man! "Manhunt" is a prototypic so-called backwoods survival thriller and, moreover, a straightforwardly obvious ode to the pioneer and granddaddy of ALL backwoods survival thrillers "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". The resembling plot is the most apparent tribute, of course, but director/co-writer Patrik Syversen expresses his respect and admirations for Tobe Hooper's horror landmark through a handful of minor details in particular, like for example the characters' similar minivan and the year in which the events supposedly take place, 1974, the release year of TCM. Setting the film in the early 70's has another great advantage, by the way, namely the elimination of some horrible clichés like the adolescent characters talking about their Facebook account the entire time and – most importantly – the elimination of the phrase: "I can't get a signal on my mobile phone!". Back then, girls also weren't as stupid as to go on a camping trip wearing make-up and stiletto heels, which makes it a lot easier for them to run from their assailants later on in the film. Anyways, so the year is 1974 and this quartet of youngsters – I deliberately refrain from calling them friends – are heading out to the middle of Norwegian nowhere to go camping. They pick up an extremely nervous female hitch-hiker at a roadside diner and this quickly turns out to be a very bad idea. Shortly after, they find themselves relentlessly pursued by a trio of seemingly motiveless but ultimately savage huntsmen. The biggest trump of "Manhunt" is undeniably the tense and ominous atmosphere. The film isn't just set in the year 1974; it often actually feels like you're watching a 70's flick, what with its raw cinematography and nihilistic tone. Another big trump here is the characterization of the villains. I usually prefer to know a bit about the bad guys' background and/or motivations, but the fact that they remain mysterious, vague and silent throughout the entire film here actually contributes to the gritty overall tone and disturbance level. We only know that they hunt down and set booby traps for human beings instead of animals and that they're unbelievably cruel. For example, they use barb wire to tie up their victims instead of regular rope and stab women in the back of their necks without hesitating. Needless to say "Manhunt" can be considered quite shocking and sick. I assume that the majority of the available budget went to the make-up department to buy blood and fake intestines. Money well spent, as the killing sequences are truly a horror fanatic's delight! The filming locations, acting performances and rough editing are also very suitable to the type of film the makers wanted to deliver.
kosmasp Especially the characters. But it still captures your attention, because it's lean, mean and fortunately short (running time wise). Yes it's not logical, yes the characters are not likable (see above and/or summary line), yes there are plot holes ... but those are things (cliches) that you see in almost any(every) horror movie these days, it's up to you to decide how bad you think it is.Another reviewer wrote that the whole thing seems to come from nowhere and that there is no explanation for what's happening. For one thing, I'd rather have it that way, rather than some stupid "had rough childhood(s) and this lead to ..." explanation. But if you really look for something, a reason, than the first "meeting" will give a little bit of a clue. For it's low budget heritage it's OK. Not special, but with better written characters, this could've gone a long way :o)
ElijahCSkuggs There are times where I re-check myself and realize my train of thought may be a little off. I consistently watch film, all types of film, and in almost every one, if there's a good looking girl with a decent size chest....I feel like the movie should owe it to us and have that girl show us her breasts. Especially if it's a horror film. I've done some soul-searching and I've come to the conclusion.....my mind is fine! When a film like Rodvyr has not one, but two chicks with two nice big racks, and they don't show a bit of skin.....it's damn horror movie blasphemy. The movie can ONLY gain points. Especially when the movie has a story like Rodvyr.The story revolves around 4 non-assuming kids off to just live it up in the wilderness. Probably camping or some sh!t. They happen to pick up this stupid chick who for some reason is keeping her mouth shut about some serious drama that has just taken place. Anyways, they run into some Norwegian Human Hunters aka NHH, and the flick turns into a survival horror flick. And, a damn average one at that.Most obviously, this flick suffers from poor writing. Let me just go through a few things that struck me as inadequate. Letdown number 1: You got the douche boyfriend living for far too long. And for some reason, they try to make scenes where you should be feeling tension/dread for this character. Well, only 10 minutes before this scene you were disliking him on all cylinders. He sucked and should have died horribly...which he didn't. Very weak death. Letdown number 2: After some cool initial deaths, they get weaker and weaker, up until the so-so final one. Deaths are supposed to get better not weaker. Letdown number 3, 4, 5.... blah blah blah: More writing related material. Girl who doesn't shut up. No taking advantage of situations. Crying when killing a bad guy and again not taking advantage. Archery scene was f@ckin stupid. Actress with melons bouncing everywhere, doesn't show her tits. Bad guys, who are obviously nuts, aren't horny bad guys??? That's just poor-ass writing right there. Potential was high, and scenes just went flat. Example, scene with the two hiding in the crevice, bad guy sees them after gutting some dude. He then just walks off to tell his fellow madmen?? He should have poured that dudes guts all over them! Wasted potential. The list can go on and on.After hearing all these stellar comments, it's quite obvious a lot of these dudes are horror fanboys. If it's even slightly entertaining, which this was, it's all praise all day long. Gimme a break. This is average to a T, and it ain't fooling me. I hear it's Norway's first slasher, if that's true, I supposed I commend them on making an average slasher with only one memorable scene. Shotgun ankle was definitely awesome. It's quite obvious I judged the hell outta this flick, and that's the way it should be. F@ck this and f@ck you.