Victor Crowley Crushes Heads In Super Bloody HATCHET 3 Trailer

Todd Brown, Founder and Editor
Here are the basic rules of franchise entertainment. The first film establishes the world and the basic rules. The second film (usually the best) expands on that world and ups the ante. The third film? That's where things generally either start going off the rails or fresh blood is brought in and things go a bit gonzo. It would appear that Hatchet 3 is taking the latter option.

HATCHET III continues the tale of the now-iconic villain Victor Crowley (Kane Hodder). As a search and recovery team heads into the haunted swamp to pick up the pieces and carnage left behind from the first two films, Marybeth (Danielle Harris) hunts down the true secret to ending the voodoo curse that has left the ghost of Victor Crowley haunting and terrorizing Honey Island Swamp for decades.
BJ McDonnell takes over the directing reins from Adam Green and if this first trailer is any indication he has no intention of being outdone in the blood and guts department. Check it out below.

Around the Internet:
  • Mitch Moor

    LOOKS GOOD TO ME BUT I CANT WAIT FOR AUGUST 13TH, 2013

  • Mr. Cavin

    The following is just an exercise in subjectivity, of course. I don't mean to seem like I want you to justify yourself. But in which movie series, horror or not, do you really think the first sequel is superior? I can see the argument for Star Wars and Alien. I disagree, but I realize that many wouldn't. Maybe even Mad Max and certainly Spider-Man. But I am still having a much, much easier time coming up with (especially horror) franchises where the second installments were universally considered inferior. I'm interested in other people's ideas here.

  • In Star Wars the second one is definitely the best. Alien and Aliens kind of feel like apples and oranges, I have a really hard time directly comparing the two. Mad Max I would go with, yes. Friday The 13th. There are others ...

    I should say that I'm talking specifically about stuff designed as franchises in that opening and that's generally only true when the franchises are well done. Take something that wasn't meant to be a franchise - Highlander, for instance - and try to stretch it out and the results are generally disastrous.

  • Mr. Cavin

    Well, since we disagree, I'm a little sensitive about your use of the word "definitely". The second Star Wars movie annoyed everybody at the time for having no ending and beginning the series' long slide into a mire of unconvincing and impromptu plot twists. As a nine-year-old I was pretty offended that I was expected to take a puppet so seriously, too. I sound harsh, but I did love the movie, even at the time. Just not as much as the leaner, more inventive original. I also understand that many, many people feel the way you do, of course.

    We probably agree about Friday the 13th, and certainly about Alien. I like all three Mad Max movies about the same (apples and oranges again, frankly), but I know Ebert like the third one best. Any more? Here are a few I think fail this test, by the way: a Nightmare on Elm St., Final Destination, Halloween, Conan, Mission Impossible, the Bourne Whatever, every Universal monster movie (though I know everybody will fight me tooth and nail about Frankenstein being inferior to Bride of), and every "next James Bond" since Lazenby.

  • I would say the second Matrix film holds to this rule as well.

  • Mr. Cavin

    Ha. I hated the second Matrix movie so much I didn't bother watching the third.

blog comments powered by Disqus
​​