THE WASHINGTONIANS disappoints in spite of decent pacing and some good moments. The filmmakers needed to expand Bentley Little's fine short story to fill an hour, and they found a generally acceptable way to do this by opening in the grandmother's town with discovery of the letter. The daughter's fearfulness was an okay added element ruined by inconsistent treatment (her reaction to the middle-of-the-night visitors was ludicrous). Franks shows the letter to the old man handling his grandmother's estate, a Washingtonian who makes no effort to hide its significance when it would be far more believable to first try convincing Franks that it's a worthless fake. In the film, everyone we meet in the grandmother's town is a Washingtonian (and vice versa, it seems), another unfortunate deviation from the story. I liked the restaurant scene where Franks becomes spooked by the meat-munching townspeople and leering waitress, but it would be just as effective resulting from paranoia and not a room full of cannibals. Even though Washingtonians in the story threaten Franks' family with being eaten the same way they do in the film, there is no banquet and it's left somewhat vague how many adherents actually engage in the practice. The banquet was added for the sake of gross-out visuals and a stale "tastes like chicken" joke, but I wish the filmmakers had restrained themselves. The fork collection was a bright idea, but from then on it's all downhill. How the professor rescues Franks' family is a highlight of Little's story - amusing, intriguing, and with something left to the reader's imagination. It was changed for the film, and the result is a major letdown. The show's tag ending is even worse. Replacing the discredited Washington's face with that of a president whose popularity tanked while still in office makes no sense whatsoever.
44 Reviews
Disappointing adaptation of a fine Bentley Little short story.
doncannonbks4 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
A Monumental Letdown
Jonny_Numb24 September 2007
"The Changeling" is one of the most effective haunted-house films ever made; paradoxically, 'The Washingtonians' is one of the weakest entries in the "Masters of Horror" series. However, I do not think Peter Medak (the director of both) is entirely to blame for this--what begins as a very cool concept rife with horrific potential (the notion that our concept of 'history' has glossed over the transgressions of our forefathers, including George Washington's penchant for dining on virgins) disintegrates into a tug-of-war between seriousness and camp. While Medak exhibits the same skilled use of light, shadow, fog, and flourishing camera moves that made "The Changeling" so endearing, 'The Washingtonians' script (by Johnathon Schaech and Richard Chizmar) is clunkily paced and tonally unfocused, shooting for satire, straight horror, or broad comedy at any given moment. The result is simply too uneven to be satisfying on any level. And possibly the biggest detriment is co-writer Schaech's performance in the lead role--unable to emote or recite dialog convincingly, his presence leaves us rooting for the cannibals all the way (Saul Rubinek--looking a lot like George Wendt--fares slightly better with his comedic bits). And while there is some suspense, and the wigs, makeup, and costumes are superb (including some of the most imposing orthodontics ever filmed), 'The Washingtonians' comes off as coldly as a corpse in winter.
4.5 out of 10
4.5 out of 10
Could have been better
timhayes-130 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This adaptation of Bentley Little's short story The Washingtonians for the TV series Masters Of Horror is one of those almost episodes. It almost is a good episode. There are parts of the episode that have a true malevolence and eeriness about them. The Washingtonians standing outside the little girl's bedroom window is a great example. Then there are scenes that just fall flat. An example of this is the raid by the men in black at the end of the episode. Some may be offended by the fiction behind this episode: the conceit that George Washington survived a bitter battle at Valley Forge by eating his men and later developed a taste for it. The truth is that this is fiction people. Why get offended? Little needed someone to be his historical cannibal whose outing would shock people and Washington fit the bill. End of story. Probably my biggest problem with the episode is that it goes from being a straight forward cannibal story to a black comedy near the end. Where the heck did that come from? And don't even get me started on the "new" one dollar bills that show up at the end of the episode. All in all there was promise here but the episode just failed to deliver.
"I will make your interns blow me, and I will spill my seed upon their dresses! B. C."
kennethsorling27 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
It's interesting to see the variety present in the other reviewers' opinions about this episode. It rather reflects my own ambivalence.
I want to hate this ridiculous story. It's badly written, badly told and above all badly sold. Which means, at no point in time does it actually suspend disbelief. It plays like a 'Treehouse of Horror' episode, but without the humor.
Case in point: The letter which kicks off the fun. It spells like a curse, but on whom? That is never disclosed, and nobody even asks. And where's the logic? A powerful man with a nasty vice wants to keep his taste for flesh a secret, so what does he do? He commits his thoughts on paper and even initials it. Way to keep a secret! Not even the current president is that stupid.
It gets downhill from there. Why do the Washingtonians dress in 18th-century costumes? Never discussed. Why kill people with (of all things) sabers? Never disclosed. Why don't they ever seem to brush their teeth? Never revealed. And why are they so incredibly stupid? Never explained.
All that being said, it has a certain kind of suggestive power. It took me three or four sittings to get through this episode, because I kept turning it off. I didn't realize it at the time, but I was actually intensely creeped, in a "don't go down into that cellar" kind of way.
So what was so creepy? It was the old people, and not when they were nasty, but when they were playing nice. Their friendliness was so stilted and so obviously fake that I found myself cringing at the sight of them, and at the sound of their smarmy voices. If you want to relive the feelings of a small child experiencing the feigned friendliness of child-hating adults, watch this episode.
As I understand, the part of the kid has been overemphasized for the TV, but it makes sense: through her, we get to relive our own feelings of disgust at old people (who obviously don't like us) acing phony. We almost see them from her point of view, and share her feelings of revulsion at their touch.
The subsequent attacks of the men in frocks comes almost as an anticlimax to that. It's so ridiculous it makes you giggle.
Consequently, I can't bring myself to grade this silly story too harshly. After all, it achieved one goal of a horror story: making the viewer feel extremely uncomfortable. It isn't horror, and it isn't terror, but hey, at least it's something.
Still, this story is a long way from 'good'. It plays like a children's tale, as told by Roald Dahl (after a talentectomy, that is). The plot holes and lack of internal logic is insufferable. It's the worst MoH I've seen to date.
I want to hate this ridiculous story. It's badly written, badly told and above all badly sold. Which means, at no point in time does it actually suspend disbelief. It plays like a 'Treehouse of Horror' episode, but without the humor.
Case in point: The letter which kicks off the fun. It spells like a curse, but on whom? That is never disclosed, and nobody even asks. And where's the logic? A powerful man with a nasty vice wants to keep his taste for flesh a secret, so what does he do? He commits his thoughts on paper and even initials it. Way to keep a secret! Not even the current president is that stupid.
It gets downhill from there. Why do the Washingtonians dress in 18th-century costumes? Never discussed. Why kill people with (of all things) sabers? Never disclosed. Why don't they ever seem to brush their teeth? Never revealed. And why are they so incredibly stupid? Never explained.
All that being said, it has a certain kind of suggestive power. It took me three or four sittings to get through this episode, because I kept turning it off. I didn't realize it at the time, but I was actually intensely creeped, in a "don't go down into that cellar" kind of way.
So what was so creepy? It was the old people, and not when they were nasty, but when they were playing nice. Their friendliness was so stilted and so obviously fake that I found myself cringing at the sight of them, and at the sound of their smarmy voices. If you want to relive the feelings of a small child experiencing the feigned friendliness of child-hating adults, watch this episode.
As I understand, the part of the kid has been overemphasized for the TV, but it makes sense: through her, we get to relive our own feelings of disgust at old people (who obviously don't like us) acing phony. We almost see them from her point of view, and share her feelings of revulsion at their touch.
The subsequent attacks of the men in frocks comes almost as an anticlimax to that. It's so ridiculous it makes you giggle.
Consequently, I can't bring myself to grade this silly story too harshly. After all, it achieved one goal of a horror story: making the viewer feel extremely uncomfortable. It isn't horror, and it isn't terror, but hey, at least it's something.
Still, this story is a long way from 'good'. It plays like a children's tale, as told by Roald Dahl (after a talentectomy, that is). The plot holes and lack of internal logic is insufferable. It's the worst MoH I've seen to date.
Oh Come on it was funny!
Lizzie-2029 January 2007
I thought this show was great, -- both scary and funny! I wonder if George Washington has any relatives that might take offense to the founder of our country being called a cannibal! Anyway, I got a big kick out of this. The old people were creepy. I loved their banquet hall with GW's old teeth and the other fork that completed the collection! The portrait they say GW commissioned was really a hoot too. I kept waiting for Saul Rubinek to turn out to be on the other side, but it ended up he was on the side of the non-cannibals. I was surprised to see that Jonathan Saech co-wrote the script -- he's totally gorgeous too. And available. Thanks Showtime. I love your series!
Garbage
Legion30328 January 2007
If you like 747-sized plot holes, incredibly bad acting and worse writing than grade 4 fan fiction, step right up. This episode has no redeeming qualities other than the actual plot summary, which could have been the summary for an interesting episode in the hands of competent people. Competence was out with the flu this week, however.
On the whole, this season has sucked. There were a few good episodes, but so far the majority are below par, especially when compared with the mostly great first season. "The Washingtonians" is by far the worst episode of this season and it would not surprise me if the series goes no farther.
On the whole, this season has sucked. There were a few good episodes, but so far the majority are below par, especially when compared with the mostly great first season. "The Washingtonians" is by far the worst episode of this season and it would not surprise me if the series goes no farther.
A Really Great Idea... Wish Someone Else Had Made It
gavin694215 February 2007
After the death of his aunt, a young man moves into her former home. In the basement he discovers a secret letter and a fork made of bone. Oh my! President Washington ate small children and made flatware from their femur bones! And now a secret society (the Washingtonians) will stop at nothing to retrieve this dangerous letter.
The director of this unusual tale is Peter Medak (known for "Species 2" and "The Changeling") based on a story by up-and-coming horror writer Bentley Little (who has been known as a Stephen King apprentice and a follower of Dean Koontz, neither title I'd wish to be known for). While the story is clearly a good one, the film based upon it is not what I was hoping for.
I like cannibals in movies ("Ravenous", "Cannibal! the Musical") and I like them more when they are George Washington or some other colonial bloke. And yes, there is some flesh-eating in this film (though not as much as I expected). And that's good. And the plot was good. And the acting was good... so where's the problem? Here's the problem: the people who adapted this for the screen (and I rest the blame firmly on Medak's shoulders) did not decide if they wanted a horror film or a comedy. Now, you can balance the two. Henenlotter and Gordon do this very well. Medak obviously can't. The film is mostly horror, but every so often we get a glimpse that this is supposed to be "dark comedy"... yet it's not funny. It just comes across as cheesy. The very last scene (which you know I can't reveal) is the solid proof that Medak doesn't know humor or how to use it. Not funny, not clever.
And that's my biggest concern, because somebody else would have made it straight horror (Argento, for example, would have upped the cannibalism) or a better blend (Gordon, Henenlotter -- who, by the way, needs his own "Masters of Horror" episode). This could have been the key episode of the season (as many previews made it out to be).
A tip of the hat goes to the writer for one thing, though: the introduction of a character who is not clearly on one side or the other (is he with or against the cannibals?). I kept second-guessing, whereas most of the time plots and motives are so predictable. So if they did one thing right, it was the writing of this character (it's a history professor, in case you were curious). I also liked the undercurrent theme that the government makes its own history, because this is so true. I just wish they didn't use such an annoying radio announcer to express that theme.
I have my bones to pick with this episode, but I still want you to see it. An idea this creative and well-thought out deserves to be seen, even if the people who optioned it clearly don't know their anuses from a hole in the ground. Someday someone will remake this after we've long forgotten Peter Medak and the world will be right again.
The director of this unusual tale is Peter Medak (known for "Species 2" and "The Changeling") based on a story by up-and-coming horror writer Bentley Little (who has been known as a Stephen King apprentice and a follower of Dean Koontz, neither title I'd wish to be known for). While the story is clearly a good one, the film based upon it is not what I was hoping for.
I like cannibals in movies ("Ravenous", "Cannibal! the Musical") and I like them more when they are George Washington or some other colonial bloke. And yes, there is some flesh-eating in this film (though not as much as I expected). And that's good. And the plot was good. And the acting was good... so where's the problem? Here's the problem: the people who adapted this for the screen (and I rest the blame firmly on Medak's shoulders) did not decide if they wanted a horror film or a comedy. Now, you can balance the two. Henenlotter and Gordon do this very well. Medak obviously can't. The film is mostly horror, but every so often we get a glimpse that this is supposed to be "dark comedy"... yet it's not funny. It just comes across as cheesy. The very last scene (which you know I can't reveal) is the solid proof that Medak doesn't know humor or how to use it. Not funny, not clever.
And that's my biggest concern, because somebody else would have made it straight horror (Argento, for example, would have upped the cannibalism) or a better blend (Gordon, Henenlotter -- who, by the way, needs his own "Masters of Horror" episode). This could have been the key episode of the season (as many previews made it out to be).
A tip of the hat goes to the writer for one thing, though: the introduction of a character who is not clearly on one side or the other (is he with or against the cannibals?). I kept second-guessing, whereas most of the time plots and motives are so predictable. So if they did one thing right, it was the writing of this character (it's a history professor, in case you were curious). I also liked the undercurrent theme that the government makes its own history, because this is so true. I just wish they didn't use such an annoying radio announcer to express that theme.
I have my bones to pick with this episode, but I still want you to see it. An idea this creative and well-thought out deserves to be seen, even if the people who optioned it clearly don't know their anuses from a hole in the ground. Someday someone will remake this after we've long forgotten Peter Medak and the world will be right again.
I am dumber for having seen this episode...
jla_lala26 January 2007
Usually MoH can be counted on for at least some amusement and, occasionally, an actually good little thriller. I have watched it loyally since the beginning. This episode was enough to make me reconsider this commitment. Hello, who thought that the guy who directed "Zorro, the Gay Blade" could possibly do anything that is not camp? It seems that his career over these past many years has been to guest direct TV series. Now I know why he can't get a steady gig. If I had wanted to feel like this badly about how I spent my evening, I would have gone to see "Epic Movie".
The premise of the episode was a little weak, but it could have been taken in a markedly more sinister direction. Perhaps a more skillful director could have pulled off the campy humor, but this fellow fell short.
The premise of the episode was a little weak, but it could have been taken in a markedly more sinister direction. Perhaps a more skillful director could have pulled off the campy humor, but this fellow fell short.
First President, First...CANNIBAL???
cchase4 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
"History is the lie that everyone agrees upon." - Goethe
Not to go all "Joe College" on you all (especially since I never went), but the preceding quote is, in a nutshell, the plot line of THE WASHINGTONIANS, adapted from a Bentley Little short story by Richard Chizmar and star Jonathan Schaech, and directed by THE CHANGELING'S very own Peter Medak.
Schaech plays Mike Franks, a guy who has just inherited a house from a dead relative, and is in the process of moving in with his family. The house is located near the place where George Washington and our Founding Fathers hammered out the terms and hashed out the ideas and ideals that basically became what is now our government (though what would they make of it if they could see it now?)
When his daughter accidentally knocks over a portrait of Old George in the spooky-looking cellar of the house, Mike makes a jaw-dropping discovery: tucked into a corner of the frame behind the canvas, he finds a strange-looking fork and a roll of parchment. When he reads it, he can't believe what's inside - sage advice for skinning and eating YOUR CHILDREN, and using the bones to fashion tools and eating utensils!
At first he figures it's some kind of sick joke, but that's only until some very scary-looking dudes in Colonial dress come banging at the front door in the dead of night, demanding the letter...or else!
It's soon after that encounter that Mike converses with a renowned historian (Saul Rubinek), who not only verifies the authenticity of the found artifacts, but begins to tell him the REAL story of the "father of our country"...and man, it ain't pretty! It seems that during that long winter at Valley Forge, when the cold ran high and the supplies ran low, our dear General Washington was starring in his own version of RAVENOUS. And once he developed a taste for human flesh...well, it got to be like Lay's Potato Chips. BETCHA CAN'T EAT JUST ONE!!!
And now the modern-day descendants of our cannibalistic Congress, who call themselves "The Washingtonians", have continued that tradition. Can Mike stop them or expose them to the world for what they really are, before he and his family become 'a la carte' entrées?
I really appreciated the ideas behind this story, and love the fact that it's told as a pitch-black horror comedy. The only two beefs I have with it are that RAVENOUS told the story better, and whatever brownie points the writers and director Medak score are completely canceled out by a beyond-corny punchline at the end.
At least it does make you wonder about it...We know all about the version of American history we learned in school. But do we really know EVERYTHING that happened? Or is it just a 'revised' version of the truth?
I wish I could give it a stronger recommendation, but once again, I'm on the fence. It's not an MOH "WOW!" episode, but it's entertaining enough that you might not want to throw shoes at your TV set when it's over.
Not to go all "Joe College" on you all (especially since I never went), but the preceding quote is, in a nutshell, the plot line of THE WASHINGTONIANS, adapted from a Bentley Little short story by Richard Chizmar and star Jonathan Schaech, and directed by THE CHANGELING'S very own Peter Medak.
Schaech plays Mike Franks, a guy who has just inherited a house from a dead relative, and is in the process of moving in with his family. The house is located near the place where George Washington and our Founding Fathers hammered out the terms and hashed out the ideas and ideals that basically became what is now our government (though what would they make of it if they could see it now?)
When his daughter accidentally knocks over a portrait of Old George in the spooky-looking cellar of the house, Mike makes a jaw-dropping discovery: tucked into a corner of the frame behind the canvas, he finds a strange-looking fork and a roll of parchment. When he reads it, he can't believe what's inside - sage advice for skinning and eating YOUR CHILDREN, and using the bones to fashion tools and eating utensils!
At first he figures it's some kind of sick joke, but that's only until some very scary-looking dudes in Colonial dress come banging at the front door in the dead of night, demanding the letter...or else!
It's soon after that encounter that Mike converses with a renowned historian (Saul Rubinek), who not only verifies the authenticity of the found artifacts, but begins to tell him the REAL story of the "father of our country"...and man, it ain't pretty! It seems that during that long winter at Valley Forge, when the cold ran high and the supplies ran low, our dear General Washington was starring in his own version of RAVENOUS. And once he developed a taste for human flesh...well, it got to be like Lay's Potato Chips. BETCHA CAN'T EAT JUST ONE!!!
And now the modern-day descendants of our cannibalistic Congress, who call themselves "The Washingtonians", have continued that tradition. Can Mike stop them or expose them to the world for what they really are, before he and his family become 'a la carte' entrées?
I really appreciated the ideas behind this story, and love the fact that it's told as a pitch-black horror comedy. The only two beefs I have with it are that RAVENOUS told the story better, and whatever brownie points the writers and director Medak score are completely canceled out by a beyond-corny punchline at the end.
At least it does make you wonder about it...We know all about the version of American history we learned in school. But do we really know EVERYTHING that happened? Or is it just a 'revised' version of the truth?
I wish I could give it a stronger recommendation, but once again, I'm on the fence. It's not an MOH "WOW!" episode, but it's entertaining enough that you might not want to throw shoes at your TV set when it's over.
Avoid this garbage at all costs.
PhillipJarodNelson14 December 2008
If I hadn't known better, I'd swear this was penned by a fifth-grader. The plot isn't just stupid, it's just plain absurd. The acting is atrocious, every moment is dull, and what seems to be intended as gore is just a bore. I think I'd have personally green-lighted my kid sister's elementary school script for "Scream 3: The Craft" (clearly a combination of the Scream films and The Craft) before giving the "go ahead" to this steamy turd.
I want my 58 minutes back.
And who in God's name has been giving decent ratings to this garbage? Were they high when they watched this or have they not actually seen it at all?
I want my 58 minutes back.
And who in God's name has been giving decent ratings to this garbage? Were they high when they watched this or have they not actually seen it at all?
The Washingtonians .
causeiwantto200123 July 2007
If there is one thing that freaks me out, even at the age of 28, it's southern old people! I felt shot back to being a small child, watching Poltergeist 2 with Jullian Beck and Zelda Rubeinstien. The lawyer is as close as I have come to feeling that creeped out, since the 80's. I got over Freddy, and Jason, still alittle fear when a Halloween sequel pops up, but to this day, the vision of Jullian Beck playing Kane still spooks me out, and I must do a scan of the room I am in! The Washingtonians seems to have that effect on me, and it really took me back to that time. The Masters of Horror series has some real gems, and this episode has left that impression on me.
George Washington, The Cannibal
Witchfinder-General-66627 July 2007
Wow! Director Peter Medak (The Changeling) delivers one of the eeriest and best episodes of the "Masters Of Horror" series so far. The 12th episode of the second season, "The Washingtonians", has it all, extreme creepiness, suspense and wit. The performances are entirely very good, and the supporting cast contains Saul Rubinek (Unforgiven, True Romance) in the role of a historian.
Mike Franks (Jonathon Schaech) travels to a small town in Virginia, near George Washington's birthplace, with his wife Pam (Venus Terzo) and daughter Amy in order to accept his late grandmother's inheritance. When browsing through the possessions of his grandfather, who was a collector of antique documents, Frank finds an eerie letter with the initials G.W.. A discovery of harsh consequences...
Jonathon Schaech and Venus Terzo deliver good and credible performances as the Franks couple and Myron Natwick is great as Samuel, an elderly local man. Julia Tortolano furthermore delivers some very good child acting as Amy Franks, and, as mentioned above, Saul Rubinek is great in his supporting role. The episode is highly atmospheric and very creepy and furthermore also delivers a fine portion of wit without ever reducing the suspense. This is how I love "Masters Of Horror", very well acted and directed, highly atmospheric and suspenseful and extremely creepy. If you like "Masters Of Horror", make sure not to miss "The Washingtonians"!
Mike Franks (Jonathon Schaech) travels to a small town in Virginia, near George Washington's birthplace, with his wife Pam (Venus Terzo) and daughter Amy in order to accept his late grandmother's inheritance. When browsing through the possessions of his grandfather, who was a collector of antique documents, Frank finds an eerie letter with the initials G.W.. A discovery of harsh consequences...
Jonathon Schaech and Venus Terzo deliver good and credible performances as the Franks couple and Myron Natwick is great as Samuel, an elderly local man. Julia Tortolano furthermore delivers some very good child acting as Amy Franks, and, as mentioned above, Saul Rubinek is great in his supporting role. The episode is highly atmospheric and very creepy and furthermore also delivers a fine portion of wit without ever reducing the suspense. This is how I love "Masters Of Horror", very well acted and directed, highly atmospheric and suspenseful and extremely creepy. If you like "Masters Of Horror", make sure not to miss "The Washingtonians"!
are you kidding me?
wyldefyre287 May 2008
this was awful. just awful. i probably am of that mind because i actually READ the short story this is based on. i adore Bentley Little and his ability to take the mundane and terrify you with it.
the premise is awesome. but the acting was horrible, and the added stuff took away from the story.
though i DID quite enjoy the bit about "tastes like chicken". that was about the only redeeming thing in my opinion.
none of the acting was believable.
at all.
sorry, it just wasn't.
maybe i'm expecting too much from a TV series, but i was so disappointed by what i saw.
the premise is awesome. but the acting was horrible, and the added stuff took away from the story.
though i DID quite enjoy the bit about "tastes like chicken". that was about the only redeeming thing in my opinion.
none of the acting was believable.
at all.
sorry, it just wasn't.
maybe i'm expecting too much from a TV series, but i was so disappointed by what i saw.
Terrible beyond any stretch of the imagination/
Naturezrevenge4 February 2007
I'm not sure if this was trying to be fresh, funny, , satyrical scary or WHAT. Whatever this was trying to accomplish, it was astronomically poor. Almost as bad as Death Tunnel! Not only he acting is of the worst caliber possible, (the acting so abysmal I liken it to something I'd see on an Infomercial), the dialogue is unintentionally hilarious, the premise although creative comes off as ridiculous and somehow old men in bright red lipstick and blush just don't come off as scary. It was like the geratric Rocky Horror Picture Show featuring George Washington in the "Washington Cox" animation by "Creased Comics" (which I highly recommend for a laugh and which you MUST watch if you're going to watch this piece o' poop whilst you're drunk or something ). Incredibly, phenomenally BAD. Good to point and laugh at and that's about all.
The ending was disappointing
jazz212223 January 2008
I read the short story first and when I heard it was going to be a Masters of Horror, I was thrilled. Masters of Horror is the greatest show ever created. The Washingtonians was very well written and stayed pretty true to the story, except for the ending. The story's ending was very much a horror ending and I was highly disappointed that they made the movie's ending so corny. Other than that, I'd recommend this movie to any horror fan or Bentley Little fan. That being said, I'd like to say that I highly enjoyed the Thomas Jefferson scene. Very creative. Very gory. Extremely entertaining. A must-see for any horror fan. And I'd also recommend buying the book with this story in it. It's called The Collection.
I swear the movie hired people to put up fake "good" reviews.
ccw8083 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
+I agree with the reviewer who made that comment that this movie could have been written by a 5th grader. Bad acting, bad storytelling, and completely unbelievable decisions by the main characters would all be acceptable if the movie had campy humor, but there was none. No witty dialogue, no creative death scenes, not even a token hottie in a bikini. The only attempt at humor was in the tacked on ending which tried way too hard.
Example of how bad this movie was:
I leaving a beating human heart in the house wasn't enough to convince the family that they should probably leave, the Washingtonians show up at the door with weapons and outright threaten to kill the family and eat them. Fortunately for the family, the police in that town respond quick and the Washingtonians run away when they hear sirens saying that they'll be back.
Now I can accept victims making bad choices in the spur of the moment while running for their lives, but the family has an entire day to figure out what they should do. For no apparent reason, they decide to stay put without at least buying a gun or even a baseball bat. Then they act surprised when the Washingtonians come back like they said they would.
If they had booby trapped the house or at least put up some kind of fight, it might have been fun, but a couple of Washingtonians knocking out the father in 1 hit shows that they weren't even trying.
I wonder what people who liked this movie would consider a bad movie. The only thing this movie had going for it was an interesting premise that was poorly executed in every way.
Example of how bad this movie was:
I leaving a beating human heart in the house wasn't enough to convince the family that they should probably leave, the Washingtonians show up at the door with weapons and outright threaten to kill the family and eat them. Fortunately for the family, the police in that town respond quick and the Washingtonians run away when they hear sirens saying that they'll be back.
Now I can accept victims making bad choices in the spur of the moment while running for their lives, but the family has an entire day to figure out what they should do. For no apparent reason, they decide to stay put without at least buying a gun or even a baseball bat. Then they act surprised when the Washingtonians come back like they said they would.
If they had booby trapped the house or at least put up some kind of fight, it might have been fun, but a couple of Washingtonians knocking out the father in 1 hit shows that they weren't even trying.
I wonder what people who liked this movie would consider a bad movie. The only thing this movie had going for it was an interesting premise that was poorly executed in every way.
"You look good enough to eat." I liked it.
poolandrews8 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Masters of Horror: The Washingtonians starts as Mike (co-writer Jonathon Schaech) & Pam Franks (Venus Terzo) along with their 10 year old daughter Amy (Julia Tortolano) drive to the house left to Frank by his recently deceased Grandmother, once there they start to explore their new home. Amy decides to look in the basement & discovers a large painting of George Washington the founder of the United States, upon closer inspection Mike finds a letter & a fork made of bone behind a tear in the canvas. The letter talks of Washington engaging in cannibalistic activities, Mike realises that if the letter turns out to be genuine then it could rewrite American history but so do a group of loons called Washingtonians who will do anything to get the letter back...
This Canadian American co-production was episode 12 from season 2 of the generally hit-and-miss Masters of Horror TV series, directed by Peter Medak I actually thought The Washingtonians was a definite hit & I rather liked this darkly comic story despite it's largely negative reviews. The tongue-in-cheek script by Richard Chizmar & star Jonathon Schaech was based on a short story of the same name by Bentley Little & has a cool twisted central premise, the thought of George Washington being a cannibal & there being people who call themselves Washingtonians who still carry on the tradition is an interesting & perverse idea that I thought made for a very watchable & entertaining 60 odd minutes. However it's far from perfect, the tight time scale means it feels a bit rushed no more so than the frustrating ending because the episode was going really well as far as I was concerned & then all of a sudden everything just seemed to end abruptly without a satisfactory conclusion which is the only real criticism I have with The Washingtonians & I deify anyone to say The Washingtonians is a worse Masters of Horror episode than The Screwfly Solution with a straight face.
Director Medak is yet another strange choice to direct a so-called Masters of Horror episode, apart from The Changeling (1981), a Tales from the Crypt episode called The New Arrival (1992) & Species II (1998) he hasn't exactly been prolific within the horror genre has he? He does fine here, there's not many scares but at least he keeps things moving & there's a nice atmosphere to this one especially the cool juxtaposition at the end when amidst all the splendour & opulence of The Washingtonians posh surroundings they indulge in very vulgar acts of cannibalism. As usual there's some top gore, there's a decapitation at the start & the expected various cannibal scenes including someone eating chunks of flesh from a severed foot, a huge tray with a chopped up body on it, there's intestine eating & plenty of blood splashed around.
Techncially these Masters of Horror episodes are very well made & don't look like the cheap made-for-TV show's that they are in reality. The special effects are excellent as always & it has high production values. The acting was alright but the 10 year girl annoyed like a lot of child actors do.
The Washingtonians seems to have a bad reputation which frankly I couldn't give a toss about because I liked it & that's all that matters to me & it's as simple & straight forward as that, I reckon it's well worth an hour of your life.
This Canadian American co-production was episode 12 from season 2 of the generally hit-and-miss Masters of Horror TV series, directed by Peter Medak I actually thought The Washingtonians was a definite hit & I rather liked this darkly comic story despite it's largely negative reviews. The tongue-in-cheek script by Richard Chizmar & star Jonathon Schaech was based on a short story of the same name by Bentley Little & has a cool twisted central premise, the thought of George Washington being a cannibal & there being people who call themselves Washingtonians who still carry on the tradition is an interesting & perverse idea that I thought made for a very watchable & entertaining 60 odd minutes. However it's far from perfect, the tight time scale means it feels a bit rushed no more so than the frustrating ending because the episode was going really well as far as I was concerned & then all of a sudden everything just seemed to end abruptly without a satisfactory conclusion which is the only real criticism I have with The Washingtonians & I deify anyone to say The Washingtonians is a worse Masters of Horror episode than The Screwfly Solution with a straight face.
Director Medak is yet another strange choice to direct a so-called Masters of Horror episode, apart from The Changeling (1981), a Tales from the Crypt episode called The New Arrival (1992) & Species II (1998) he hasn't exactly been prolific within the horror genre has he? He does fine here, there's not many scares but at least he keeps things moving & there's a nice atmosphere to this one especially the cool juxtaposition at the end when amidst all the splendour & opulence of The Washingtonians posh surroundings they indulge in very vulgar acts of cannibalism. As usual there's some top gore, there's a decapitation at the start & the expected various cannibal scenes including someone eating chunks of flesh from a severed foot, a huge tray with a chopped up body on it, there's intestine eating & plenty of blood splashed around.
Techncially these Masters of Horror episodes are very well made & don't look like the cheap made-for-TV show's that they are in reality. The special effects are excellent as always & it has high production values. The acting was alright but the 10 year girl annoyed like a lot of child actors do.
The Washingtonians seems to have a bad reputation which frankly I couldn't give a toss about because I liked it & that's all that matters to me & it's as simple & straight forward as that, I reckon it's well worth an hour of your life.
Not very tasty.
Son_of_Mansfield10 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
George Washington was a cannibal! That is about all this has to offer in the joke category. The man you thought was a patriot just wanted to eat virgins. Once you get past the easy laugh, there isn't much to enjoy. Dull conspiracy, some hiding, and looking for allies. It all ends in a showdown where the baddies explain everything you always wanted to know about cannibalism, but where to afraid to ask before being slaughtered for the freaks that they are. It's all fairly mild and unimpressive and I would have left it at that had it not involved good old George. He may not be today's idea of a perfect man, but if you are going to come at him, it should at least be a little more complex than bad teeth and cherry jokes.
Not great but entertaining
dean290030 January 2007
NO SPOILERS (other than basic plot outline) I have been disappointed with MOH overall but this was actually a pretty decent episode. It is probably in the top 3 which should tell you more about the series as a whole than this episode.
I did find this episode to be creepy especially during the first 3rd of the movie. The last 3rd of the episode got kind of cheesy and goofy but this is still a good episode overall.
The basic premise is that George Washington was a cannibal and a group of people named the Washingtonians were there to protect his secret. A man and his family inherit his grandfathers house and finds a scroll with the true nature of George Washington.
The last third of the episode focuses on the Washingtonians and their history. It is violent and gory but no longer creepy. The ending was a bit of a cop out.
I did give this episode a 7 out of 10 which is high for Masters of Horror for the creepiness it managed to sustain for 2/3rds of the episode. This is still one of the better episodes of MOH so if you have liked any past episodes then I would recommend this.
I did find this episode to be creepy especially during the first 3rd of the movie. The last 3rd of the episode got kind of cheesy and goofy but this is still a good episode overall.
The basic premise is that George Washington was a cannibal and a group of people named the Washingtonians were there to protect his secret. A man and his family inherit his grandfathers house and finds a scroll with the true nature of George Washington.
The last third of the episode focuses on the Washingtonians and their history. It is violent and gory but no longer creepy. The ending was a bit of a cop out.
I did give this episode a 7 out of 10 which is high for Masters of Horror for the creepiness it managed to sustain for 2/3rds of the episode. This is still one of the better episodes of MOH so if you have liked any past episodes then I would recommend this.
Rather funny and gruesome tale
ODDBear24 October 2008
Well, this is quite funny. The founding father of America was a cannibal and he has some nasty devotees.
To count the good stuff here; we have some solid gore on display and the first 20 minutes or so are somewhat creepy.
Some reviewers here call the story retarded and the acting retarded (I always think that's a "retarded" way of reviewing a film) but I don't agree, I thought the family was likable and Saul Rubinek quite funny in the closing moments. The story is a joke, not to be taken seriously, although it does make note of the fact that media (and history) distort the truth. But still, this is a joke, a nasty one but rather funny and gruesomely inventive.
"The Washingtonians" is not one of the better MOH episodes but it's an OK way to kill an hour.
To count the good stuff here; we have some solid gore on display and the first 20 minutes or so are somewhat creepy.
Some reviewers here call the story retarded and the acting retarded (I always think that's a "retarded" way of reviewing a film) but I don't agree, I thought the family was likable and Saul Rubinek quite funny in the closing moments. The story is a joke, not to be taken seriously, although it does make note of the fact that media (and history) distort the truth. But still, this is a joke, a nasty one but rather funny and gruesomely inventive.
"The Washingtonians" is not one of the better MOH episodes but it's an OK way to kill an hour.
GREAT CONCEPT, HILARIOUS EXECUTION!
etool26 March 2020
I have hated just about every episode or short film of Masters of Horror I've seen but this episode is amazing! I loved just about every second of it. It's not great or genius in the way that Night of the Living Dead or Citizen Kane is great, it's more on the level of the Boondock Saints or the Room. But come on, the concept alone should interest someone into watching this masterpiece. What's better than cannibal George Washington? This episode is so funny. The acting from the Washingtonians is so over the top and they chew up every scene they're in. The acting from everyone else except the professor ranges from meh to laughably bad. I'm glad the creators of this episode weren't afraid to go where this episode went. Everything you're gonna want to see will be on screen. The only big complaint I have is that the opening scene is really bad and is unnecessary. Go watch this with a couple of friends, don't take it seriously at all, and have fun!
Silly but OK
preppy-326 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Mike Franks (Jonathon Schaech) finds a letter in the basement of his late grandmothers house. It is written by George Washington and shows him to be a cannibal (!!). It seems the letter is authentic. Mike doesn't know what to do with it...and he and his family are being threatened with death from men dressed from Colonial times.
This episode of "Masters of Horror" starts off with a somewhat interesting idea but becomes increasingly ludicrous. Men in Colonial garb riding around on horses...and no one notices? Also there is a beheading at the beginning that is never explained. And then it turns into a comedy (albeit a very black one) at the end! These shifts in tone are jarring and don't flow together well at all. Still, I was never bored and the punchline at the end WAS funny. The only real surprise here is Schaech--I've always liked him but he's terrible here and looks like he's aging badly. Still, a somewhat OK episode.
This episode of "Masters of Horror" starts off with a somewhat interesting idea but becomes increasingly ludicrous. Men in Colonial garb riding around on horses...and no one notices? Also there is a beheading at the beginning that is never explained. And then it turns into a comedy (albeit a very black one) at the end! These shifts in tone are jarring and don't flow together well at all. Still, I was never bored and the punchline at the end WAS funny. The only real surprise here is Schaech--I've always liked him but he's terrible here and looks like he's aging badly. Still, a somewhat OK episode.
To all those involved: Never show your face in public again!
mulv6770-127 January 2007
This is probably, easily the most idiotic piece of garbage ever put to film. It's not scary, although I'm not sure if its supposed to be. Parts are supposed to be funny, I think, but its not funny at all.
It's completely insulting to humanity. Any person involved in this production should be embarrassed. Their families should be embarrassed. None of these people should ever get any work in Hollywood ever again. If I were involved in this garbage, I'd be afraid to show my face in public.
I've seen bad shows, bad movies, bad everything before. But this... this takes the cake in terms of garbage.
It's completely insulting to humanity. Any person involved in this production should be embarrassed. Their families should be embarrassed. None of these people should ever get any work in Hollywood ever again. If I were involved in this garbage, I'd be afraid to show my face in public.
I've seen bad shows, bad movies, bad everything before. But this... this takes the cake in terms of garbage.
Horrible
SamUnfiltered197924 March 2020
Just wretched. Julia Tortalanos lack of acting talent ruined this. She was unbearable to watch. Who cast such a cringey performing talentless unlikable person? All she did was mug at the camera and scream. Couldnt even do that convincingly. Could have been better if she was not in it.
Not especially good, but enjoyable on some levels
jdollak14 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
When I first heard the summary of this episode several months ago, I was interested enough to locate the short story and read it. Bentley Little's writing is just as silly as the writing in this episode is. That's not to say that the idea is so bad. In fact, the idea is outlandish enough that it is remarkably engaging.
The direction is actually annoying, with far too much attention paid to the daughter, who serves as a scream machine. The dialogue is stilted, and in at least one instance it is enjoyable, with the pair of odd cops, although in other instances, it is just ridiculous. ("I will eat your children" "What does this mean?")
And the ending was changed in this version, to something that, while very modern, is different enough to hurt the fun that the original story had. And the tacked on ending seems to be nonsensical. While I understand the idea of the bill changing, the reaction of the child makes very little sense.
There were charges that the story is too left-leaning. I have no idea where this comes from.
Regardless of the many weaknesses, the story does have a few points going for it. First, the gore is pleasantly grisly. The sound is done well, making it a squeamish experience to watch all of the cannibalism. Second, the idea of history being an elaborate deception is a remarkably creepy idea. Little's stories are usually focused on a distrust of authority, and what could be more authoritative than our sense of patriotism?
The direction is actually annoying, with far too much attention paid to the daughter, who serves as a scream machine. The dialogue is stilted, and in at least one instance it is enjoyable, with the pair of odd cops, although in other instances, it is just ridiculous. ("I will eat your children" "What does this mean?")
And the ending was changed in this version, to something that, while very modern, is different enough to hurt the fun that the original story had. And the tacked on ending seems to be nonsensical. While I understand the idea of the bill changing, the reaction of the child makes very little sense.
There were charges that the story is too left-leaning. I have no idea where this comes from.
Regardless of the many weaknesses, the story does have a few points going for it. First, the gore is pleasantly grisly. The sound is done well, making it a squeamish experience to watch all of the cannibalism. Second, the idea of history being an elaborate deception is a remarkably creepy idea. Little's stories are usually focused on a distrust of authority, and what could be more authoritative than our sense of patriotism?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
