Hatfields and McCoys: Bad Blood (2012) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
13 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
4/10
After watching the Costner series this one is not comparable at all. Story is very different I say C-.
Tony Heck2 June 2012
"I don't plan to out gun them, I plan to out kill them." After a son of Anse Hatfield (Fahey) is attacked by a member of the McCoy family a feud is begun. The Governor of Kentucky (Slater) sends his deputy Frank Philips to try and stop the fighting before its too late. I will do my best not to be biased on this one, but I did watch the History Channel series before this one. For some reason there are a lot of movies that come out that are very similar back to back. Examples like "Deep Impact" & "Armegeddon", "Tombstone" & "Wyatt Earp", "Mirror Mirror" & "Snow White and the Huntsman". This one is no exception as this one is released less then a week after the Costner one aired. Of all the movies I listed there is always one that is way better then the others. Unfortunately this is the lesser of the two Hatfield movies. The budget and acting aside the stories are so unlike the other that I have no idea which one is right. While the Costner one made me want to learn more about the history of the fight this one just made me want to watch the other one again. Overall, maybe if I saw this one first my opinion may be different but the History channel series was a hundred times better. I give it a C-.
25 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
You have got to be kidding me!!
Duke-566 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I enjoyed the TV version with Costner I just wanted more of the story, so I rented this when I saw it at Redbox. Amanda B. has lost it and let herself go, though she and Fahey were the best actors in this joke of a release. Why bother with any facts, just rewrite stories, and condense the facts to shorten the movie This was not even as good as a local amateur play or locally shot movie made by high school or college drama club. The cast did a lot of shooting in the movie, but clearly never went to a shooting range to see how to hold a gun. The only visual effects I could detect was the terrible FIRE on the house. Just terrible and a waste of my time. The spoiler is if you read this before you rent it, you won't rent it....and I have done my job.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Terrible movie
dorothy00924 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This telling of the Hatfield and McCoy feud was horrible, For one thing they only had 2 of the McCoy brothers being killed in revenge of Ellison Hatfield being killed when in fact there was 3, Also this version claimed Asa McCoy was Randall's son when in fact Asa was Randall's brother. Asa was also the father of Nancy McCoy who in fact did marry Johnse Hatfield and later was married to Bad Frank Phillips. This is just an example of how they screwed up the true facts. They took the story of the Hatfield's and McCoys and completely rewrote it. This was just a horrible movie. Please don't waste your money or your time watching this dud,
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Shameless Money Grab...Albeit A Small One.
AudioFileZ10 June 2012
Having no idea if the intent of this production is to ride the coattails of the History Channel's "Hatfields & McCoys" mini-series one has to think so. Obviously that one raised the current day brand recognition to an all time post WWII height, why not make a few lousy dollars?

Sadly, this seems to be the the purpose of this "K-Mart" version of the tale. I suppose if it wasn't up against the superior History Channel treatment it may look like a much crisper (almost too clear 16:9 production reeks of HD videotape, i.e., no film soft grain) 1970's ABC "Movie of the Week", but since many viewers will be watching this after seeing the far superior Kevin Costner version it pretty much is laughable.

In addition to the bargain basement production values we get a much different story. I know from research that The History Channel deviated somewhat, but here we have a very topical story with seemingly even more deviation. There just ain't any meat on these bones and the bones themselves are broken. In the back of my mind I get the feeling Jeff Fahey might have been quite good if given more to work with...That's about all I can say as the other performances were less than "phoned-in" to coin a phrase.

O.K., it's watchable if somewhat laughable. That's the only reason I give it a 3 (full disclosure: If I had paid to see it the rating would be less). I don't know how much they paid Christian Slater for his meager role here, but seriously are infomercials next?
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
I was duped
patriotgirl14 June 2012
I THOUGHT I was getting the Hatfields and McCoys with Kevin Costner etc. and didn't realize this was a different version. This was SO lame. Bad, awkward acting, horrible costuming and sets, anachronistic dialogue. Everyone looks perfectly clean, I think I saw a sliding glass door in one exterior of the Hatfield's house and what's with using the phrase "Don't even ..." when one of the Hatfield boys challenges his father. I was surprised they didn't talk about "bustin' a cap" in their McCoy asses at some point. This was just a poorly done production all the way around. Do not waste your time renting this low quality, wannabe, unless you WANT a good laugh. My son and I just wrote our own lines as we watched and laughed a lot!
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
So wildly inaccurate as to be unwatchable
Chuck (cgriff-3)6 June 2012
In this who's who of actors who haven't worked in years, there's virtually nothing here worth the two hours it took to watch. Bad acting, horrid script, and far better alternatives that tell the story more accurately make this a useless film.

I wanted to like it, I really did. There was no reason to depart so much from known facts. I should've known better when I saw Jeff Fahey listed as the lead. Has he ever had anything that wasn't straight to video cheese? It's ore a film students project or some kind of attempt to milk tax dollars out of a film incentive program than an honest attempt to make a solid film.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Laughably bad
Nick B6 March 2014
This movie is awful. The acting is all around horrendous. Frank Phillips struggles with his accent very noticeably. The few recognizable actors in this film must really be hurting for work. These were supposed to be Appalachian hill folk, but you get clean cut pretty boys with brand new, pristine, clean clothing, gelled hair, and even designer jeans in a few scenes. The first 5 minutes of this movie, a Civil War battle scene, are just terrible, and pretty much set the bar for the rest of the movie. It looks like it was cast with overweight man boys straight out of comicon who jumped at the chance for a reenactment. Indoor scenes have doors open to blank green screens, too. This movie isn't worth the hour and a half of your life - not even for laugh content.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Worst acting I've seen in a long time
gene-stephens2816 June 2012
It was as if the director picked the worst actors he could possibly find and then told them they only needed to give 10%. The best actor was the mute girl. The best part about the movie was the fact that the producers ran out of money and could only afford to stretch the film to 75 minutes. Christian Slater needs to stop doing western movies. He is actually ruining what could be good shows. I don't know if Sean Flynn or Kassandra Clementi have ever attended an acting school but if they did they need to get their money back and possibly sue the university. I would recommend this movie to anyone who has at least 200 hours a week to spare.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
NOT the worst movie I've ever seen, but bloody close!!
jmvscotland18 September 2014
I've already wasted 75 minutes of my life watching this almost insufferable tripe so I won't waste more than a few minutes writing this review. Like some others here, I bought the DVD, thankfully cheaply in Thailand, confused that it was the other one that rates over 8.0 on IMDb. I take the attitude that a movie is very rarely bad enough not to watch to the end. I mean, how can one have an opinion about any movie (or TV series for that matter) without at least watching the movie to the end? So, good to my word, I watched this one all the way through and WHAT A LONG MOVIE IT WAS FOR ITS 75 MINUTES. In short, the script was awful and the acting wooden. everything went exactly as one would have predicted. It really was laughably bad!! It is through watching this type of crap that one knows what a good movie is by comparison. JMV
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Not Terrible
noirish738 October 2013
To enjoy this movie, first, disregard any facts you may possess about the Hatfields and McCoys and, second, release any expectations of realism. Then just take the ride. I did appreciate the acting, the Kentucky scenery, and the wonderful music. I thought Jeff Fahey and Perry King were very good as the family heads. This is not the real story of the feud, but it is a story. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It makes sense and is easy to follow--because it is a condensed, pared-down, dummied-down, made-for-TV kind of movie. It uses the bare minimum of family members, relationships, and events. Don't bother comparing it to the outstanding Kevin Costner mini-series. Just take it for what it is, and you might see it as the hour and a half of escapism that it is. Not terrible. . . .
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Worth it!
Lori Mitchell5 June 2012
I give this title more credit than the Costner mini series. It was actually filmed in Kentucky as opposed to Romania! No one has written accounts of the actual events of the feud, so who is to say which version is correct? Of course it's different; it's a different interpretation... I think this film is creative and has wonderful actors. Jeff Fahey is phenomenal! Tim Abell as Jim Vance is appealing, not appalling (as apposed to Costner's miniseries version). His acting is precise and perfect to his character. Christian Slater is... well, Christian Slater. Costner's version is about an hour and a half too long. This film is timed perfectly. This film is great considering its low budget, and Perry King does a tremendous job as Randall McCoy. And it was filmed on site with many Kentucky actors!! That alone gives it wonderful appeal! I've got to give Fred Olen Ray credit where credit is due. He provides much insight and explanation throughout the film so I wasn't lost historically. The discussions between characters are thoughtful and helpful to the viewer, leaving no questions. Characters are easily identifiable. The film is succinct and sticks to a storyline that makes sense, albeit maybe not entirely historically accurate. It's not muddled by EVERY Hatfield and McCoy feud rumor out there! Ray does an excellent job creating historical drama in this film. I thoroughly enjoyed it!
18 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Terrible, awful, horrible. Plus bad acting!
bookladyinred11 June 2015
I'm from southern WV, so I grew up on this story/history. This movie has the right names, but precious little else connects it to the actual Hatfields and McCoys. My husband is a transplanted Pennsylvanian and still knows the details better than presented in this movie.

Hatfields die, McCoys die. Not at the right places, not at the right times, and some are killed by the wrong people!

It appears someone tried to capitalize on the resurgence of interest in the feud back in 2011/2012 and slapped this together. Check out Wikipedia if you want to know what really happened.

Better yet, visit southern WV and/or KY and check it out!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Terrible
dsburrows6522 November 2014
Maybe this movie suffered from the misfortune of my already having seen Kevin Costner's version of the Hatfields and McCoys because it caused me to want to learn more about the events that actually occurred. Sadly, this version failed to make it even to "B" status. This version was so pared down that they messed with a lot of the facts: -Johnse Hatfield did not stay with Rosanna McCoy but under pressure from his family abandoned the relationship. He later married her cousin Nancy McCoy who then left him for Bad Frank Phillips -Randall's wife did not get killed when the house was attacked by Jim Vance; she was driven insane -Ellison Hatfield was not stabbed by two McCoy's but 3 (Tolbert, Pharmer and Bud), who were all then summarily shot by Jim Vance and company upon his death -Bad Jim Vance was not killed by Anse but by Frank Phillips I could go on but I think you get the point. The ending with Johnse showing up with a pregnant Rosanna was just the icing on the cake, trying to have a happy, fairy tale ending where they are one big happy family. The best thing about this version is that they did NOT extend the movie to go onto other events such as Floyd Hatfield's hog, Cottontop being hanged for Alifair McCoy's murder, the Battle of Grapevine Creek, etc.

As far as the acting went, there were no winners here. A lot of the dialogue seemed forced and it failed to stir the least bit of emotion in me to identify with anything the characters went through. Given the choice between the two, go with the Costner version every day of the week.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews